has often acknowledged unto me both by letters and otherwise, having been as ill governed as any other in Christendom, or worse, will never be able to recover and to settle to be a good seminary for that Church, if both the power and the credit of the Provost be not upheld by his Superiors; and should a Provost that is otherwise vigilant and careful err in some circumstantial business, it is far better for the publick if not to maintain his errors, yet to pass by them, rather than to give countenance and encouragement for such young heads, as seek for no other liberty than that which may make way for licentiousness. My Lord upon this ground I could heartily wish the heats, which I doubt not have been in this business, had been forborn or that yet your Lordship could bring it to that temper that both parties would lay down the cause and not put me to give a public decision, which as this case stands may do some hurt, which way soever the justice of the cause upon full evidence shall sway my judgment."

He then proceeds to state, that he had drawn up from all the papers sent to him a full statement of the facts, and to request that the Lord Deputy would call the parties before him, and read the case so prepared, that before he gave judgment the facts might be acknowledged, on which that judgment was to rest. He wrote also, on the same day, a letter to the Primate, containing nearly the same particulars, and concluding with these words: "My hope is great in your Grace's moderation, but if all fail, I shall make a binding decision, so soon as ever the state of the business is sent me back."

There is now no allusion to the College in Strafford's letters for ten months, and it is not easy to ascertain the course of proceedings in that interval, except that some reconciliation had taken place between the Visitors and the Provost. It is certain that at the Visitation, Hoyle and Feasant, two of the petitioning Fellows, were appointed Senior Fellows, and with them Ware, Cullen having been passed over for some reason not explained. The reconciliation must have been effected by the restoration of Newman and Conway, and the expulsion of Fea

sant", which events certainly took place before the following March. Archbishop Laud seems to have come to the determination of putting an end to these disturbances for the future, by giving to the College a new Charter and a body of Statutes. Various difficulties presented themselves in overcoming the objections of the Fellows, and it was necessary that the Provost and four Senior Fellows should accept the new Charter. These difficulties, however, the Chancellor determined to overcome by the strong arm of power. Mr. Newman had now ceased to be a Fellow from lapse of time. There were but four Senior Fellows, one of them hostile, and another doubtful. In March the Lord Deputy sent a mandate to appoint John Harding a Senior Fellow, and in May another mandate to appoint Thomas Marshall. There was now a sufficient number to receive the Charter, and accordingly it was accepted on the 5th of

2 Of Feasant we hear nothing more, except, perhaps, he was the Thomas Feasant who, in 1641, presented a petition to the House of Commons against the Bishop of Cork, which was referred to the College Committee, and afterwards sent up, with many others, to the House of Lords.

a The Senior Fellows were Kerdiffe, Chaplain to the Bishop of Meath, and very hostile, Conway, Hoyle, and Ware.

b The Act of Acceptance is as follows:

"We the Provost Fellows and scholars of the College near Dublin have decreed on the 11 day of May in the year of our Lord 1637 and of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King Charles the 13th to accept and receive the new Charter and Statutes sent unto us from his Majesty. And by these presents we do in all humility and thankfulness accept and receive the same to all those ends and purposes whereunto they are by his Majesty sent unto us. In witness whereof we have subscribed these presents. "Dated June 5 WM. CHAPPELL Provost. "A. D. 1637. JOHN HARDING.

THOS. MARSHALL.

Ro. CONWAY.

NATH. HOYLE.

ARTH. WARE."

In the charges against Provost Chappell presented to the House of Commons, one is, that he, with two Fellows, William Newman and Robert Conway, were the only persons who accepted the Charter. To what this alludes I cannot guess. There appears but one acceptance, which is given above, signed by the Provost and five Senior Fellows, when Mr. Newman had ceased to be a Fellow. It has been conjectured, that the Provost and these two Fellows must have given some consent to receiving a Charter,

June, 1637, being Trinity Monday, and signed by the Provost and five Senior Fellows. On the same day, at three o'clock, the Primate and the Archbishop of Dublin went into the chapel of the College, and the Provost and Fellows took the oaths prescribed by the new Statutes. The Visitors having retired, the Provost and Fellows proceeded to fill up the number of Senior Fellows for the first time during two years, and then they elected six Junior Fellows to complete the whole body.

Soon after this Archbishop Laud expresses to the Lord Deputy his satisfaction, "that the differences of the College are at last appeased." He then adds: "Great pity it is that such young fellows and so ill conditioned as Fesant

which was in contemplation at the same time that they passed the vote rescinding the Statute about the majority, and that this act would account for the severity of the Visitors, who must have been offended at the attempt to remove them. But the report to the Commons speaks of the Charter having been received by them alone, though professing to be with the consent of the Provost, Fellows, and Scholars. Besides, it is more than probable that the change of Visitors was suggested to Archbishop Laud by the events of the Visitation. The only mode of accounting for the charge seems to be, that the accusers of Bishop Chappell were not very exact, provided they could secure his condemnation, and mixed up the two transactions, the events previous to the Visitation with the acceptance of the Charter.

c The principal points of difference between the old and new Charter were, that the appointment to the Provostship was lodged in the Crown; that the duration of a Fellowship was for life; that the power of making Statutes was reserved to the King; that the number of Visitors was reduced to two, and a reference in all cases of moment required to the Chancellor; and that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor was in the Chancellor. The change in the appointment of the Provost was merely nominal, for the King had interfered in every election from the foundation of the College. The limitation of a Fellowship in the first Charter to seven years from the degree of A. M., however necessary and useful for an infant establishment, was calculated to keep the Society in a state of perpetual imbecility. In ordinary cases there could not be any Fellow more than thirty years of age, not any who had taken the first degree in Divinity, though their oath bound them to that study, not an individual who could be elected Provost. It was a strange anomaly in the Charter, that while the duration of a Fellowship was thus confined to seven years, there was no limit whatever to the tenure of a scholarship. It is to be remarked, however, that the College did not resign the old Charter. They only accepted the new one, which recited the old one, and confirmed it in most parts.

and Cullend should be able to get within the Visitors and cause such disturbances; but the expulsion of Fesant being so deseruedly laid hold on, hath wrought that cure, if a full cure it be for your Lordship knows as well as I that the disease hath another cause, which cannot be expelled, and therefore the malady may I doubt fret inwardly still." This cause was, no doubt, the bad feeling that subsisted between the Primate and the Provost. Lord Strafford, in answer, says: "I hope all is very right betwixt my Lord Primate and the Provost, and I trust will so continue. However, I shall certainly awake to the prevention of any disturbance, which might unsettle the peace of the College-And if there were any thing in me to contribute to the benefit and preferment of the Provost, I should run to it with all my heart for he is a very worthy person; always provided he continue Provost, for I assure you, he hath begot a mighty reformation amongst them. And I see that good work might and will prosper in his hands, and therefore great pity it were to remove him thence. I assure you I do not know where he can do more service to the Church and Commonwealth, yet I would not be misunderstood, I am not minded to punish him for his merit, or be against his advancement, were it to the best Bishoprick in the Kingdom, for he deserves it, but still conditionally that he keep the College. In the mean space he hath better than £500 a year and is

d Yet Cullen, at this time, was a Senior Fellow, having been coopted on the day the new Charter was received.

e Chappell himself referred all the disturbances in College to the Primate and the Bishop of Meath:

"Primatus in me odium interim est
Midensis haud languet (subige Deus animos)
Collegii male administrati arguor

(Quod ipsi adegerant miserrimum in statum
Ego reparaveram) Bicius urget Domum."

By Bicius he means John Bysse, the Recorder of Dublin.

f Strafford's Letters, vol. ii. pag. 120. Lord Strafford, for the purpose of improving the discipline of the College, and also of assimilating it to the Universities of England, issued an Act of the Lord Deputy and Council, giving to the Proctor of the University jurisdiction in the city of Dublin. This Act was signed by the Primate, the Chancellor (Loftus), and fifteen other Privy Councillors.

passing well contented withal. I have so great an opinion of his government and integrity that I am putting my son thither under his eye and care; by which you will judge I purpose not to have him one of Prynne's disciples."

In the next letter of Archbishop Laud, it appears very evident what judgment he would have given, had he been called upon to decide between the Visitors and the Provost. His words are: "Is should never have betrayed so deserving a man for any man's greatness, but God be thanked, tis much better as it is and I heartily thank you for it." The conduct of Archbishop Laud and Lord Strafford towards the College seems to have met with general approbation at the time, for, among the various charges brought against each of them on their trials, no accusation was preferred respecting their government of the College, with the exception of their promoting Chappell. Dr. Heylin, in his Life of the Archbishop, says: "Norh could his care and providence for the encouragement of learning be confined to this side of the sea: the like course being taken by him shortly after, as well for reviving and perfecting the broken statutes of the College near Dublin as the enlarging the privileges of that University."

Scarcely had a year elapsed', when the differences between the Primate and the Provost were renewed, and there can be no doubt whatever that the justice of the case lay with the Primate, who was supported by the powerful but unavailing aid of the Bishop of Derry. Chappell was promoted to the Bishopric of Cork, and allowed to hold the Provostship in commendam, thus exhibiting a direct violation of the Statutes within a year of their being promulgated.

8 Strafford's Letters, vol. ii. pag. 132.

h Cyprianus Anglicus, pag. 316.

i In this interval the Primate was in considerable danger from the overturning of his carriage. The particulars are not handed down to us, but the accident is thus alluded to, in a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Bishop of Derry, dated Feb. 17, 1637: “I am very glad to hear, since my Lord Primate had a mischance by his coach, he caught no harm by it."-Rawdon Papers, pag. 48.

Another direct violation of the Statutes was committed at the same time. Dr. Harding, Vice-Provost, who had been admitted a Fellow by