Chapter III: The Eighteenth Century Up to 1758 (2)

When the Board meets to inquire into a violation of the
Statutes on the part of the Students, the young gentlemen who
are conscious of their guilt assemble in the courts below; they
have secured a number of their friends; they are surrounded by
a great crowd of their brethren; how many they may have engaged
to be of their party is not to be discovered, and they give,
perhaps, plain intimations that they will not suffer them to be
censured. Trusting in their numbers, they will not suffer any
one man to be singled out for an example.... Physical violence
is consequently to be expected by the Provost, Senior Fellows,
and the Dean proceeding to the Hall to read out censures.

Primate Boulter’s letters throw some light upon the state of
discipline in the College at this time. Baldwin, now become
Provost, most likely from his known devotion to the Whig party
and the Hanoverian Succession, and his efforts to subdue the
Jacobite faction in College, was a man of a very arbitrary and
determined character. He appears to have used the full authority
which the Statutes gave him, and frequently summoned the two
Deans, and removed from the College books the names of disorderly
Students without consulting the Board. Some of the Senior
Fellows, notably Dr. Delany, a strong Tory, whose politics were
shared by his friend and colleague, Dr. Helsham, were opposed to
these arbitrary proceedings, and took measures in London to bring
the matter before the Council, in order to have the Provost’s
statutable power in these matters curtailed. We learn from
Boulter’s letters to the Duke of Newcastle, that early in 1725--

Two Undergraduates of the College, one of them a Scholar,
had company at their chambers till about an hour after the
keys of the College were carried, according to custom, to the
Provost. When their company was willing to go, upon finding the
College gates shut, and being told the keys were carried to
the Provost, the Scholars went to the Provost’s lodgings, and
knocked there in an outrageous manner. Upon the Provost’s man
coming to the door to see what was the matter, they told him
they came for the keys to let out their friends, and would have
them, or they would break open the gates. He assured them the
keys were carried to his master, and that he durst not awake
him to get them, and then the man withdrew. Upon their coming
again to knock with great violence at the Provost’s door, he
was forced to rise, and came down and told them they should
not have the keys, and bid his man and the porter take notice
who they were. The next day he called the two Deans to his
assistance, as their Statutes require, and sent for the lads to
his lodgings. The Scholar of the house came, but not the other.
To him they proposed his making a submission for his fault in
the Hall, and being publicly admonished there. This he made a
difficulty in doing; and upon their proceeding to the Hall,
when he came out of the lodgings he put on his hat before the
Provost and walked off. The Provost and Deans went on to the
Hall, and after waiting there some time to see whether he would
come and submit, they expelled them both.

The Scholar’s name was Annesley, a relation of Lord Anglesea, and
through his influence with the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Carteret)
and the Visitors [and upon his apologising] he was restored....
We find that he took the B.A. degree in 1726, and that of M.A. in
1729.

* * * * *

We are told in a pamphlet, supposed to have been written by Dr.
Madden, that one of the Students, after a long course of neglect
of duties, as well as for a notorious insult [committed] upon the
Junior Dean, was publicly admonished. In order to resent this
punishment, ten or twelve of the Students behaved themselves in
a most outrageous manner; they stoned the Dean out of the Hall,
breaking into his rooms, and destroying everything in them. They
continued to ravage other parts of the College until the middle
of the night, evidently endangering the life of the person who
was the object of their resentment. Dr. Madden adds that this was
done “in a time of great lenity of discipline--perhaps too much
so.” “The Board offered considerable rewards for the discovery
of the perpetrators of these riotous proceedings; the Students
retorted by offering higher rewards to anyone who would bring
in the informer, dead or alive. A threatening letter was sent
to the Provost. Strangers from town, as was usually the case,
came into the College to assist in the pillage. One of these
attempted to set fire to the College gates; and had not some of
the well-disposed Students prevented this, they would have laid
the whole College in ashes, as the flames would have caught hold
of the ancient buildings, extravagantly timbered after the old
manner, and would have reached the new buildings [the Library
Square], and the flames could not then have been extinguished.”

One of the Junior Fellows, named Edward Ford, who had been
elected in 1730, had rendered himself particularly obnoxious to
the Students. He was not Junior Dean; but he appears to have
been an obstinate and ill-judging man, who took upon himself
to restrain the Students in an imprudent manner. They resented
this interference. He had been often insulted by them, and had
received a threatening letter. This caused him much dejection of
spirits; and as his rooms had suffered in the previous tumult,
he kept loaded arms always by his side. One night he was asleep
in his rooms (No. 25), over a passage which then led from the
Library Square into the playground (a walled-in enclosure which
at that time occupied the site of the present New Square). A
loaded gun lay by his bedside. Some of the Students threw stones
against his windows, which was the usual way in which they
annoyed the College authorities. Ford rose from his bed and fired
upon them from his window, which faced the playground. Determined
to retaliate, the band of Students rushed to their chambers,
seized the fire-arms, which they had persisted in keeping
(although such had been forbidden, under pain of expulsion, by a
decree of the Board, March 24, 1730), and they ran back to the
playground. In the meanwhile one of the Scholars, who resided
in the same house, seeing the danger in which Ford was placed,
and knowing the character of the man, managed to get into his
bedroom, and strongly urged him to remain in bed. Ford, with his
characteristic obstinacy, would not listen to this advice, but
went to the window in his nightdress, when the Students seeing
him, fired at the window, and wounded him mortally. Poor Ford
lingered in great agony for about two hours before he died. The
Board immediately met and investigated the circumstances of the
murder, and expelled Mr. Cotter, Mr. Crosby, Boyle, Scholes, and
Davis, as being the authors of or participators in Mr. Ford’s
murder. The Board employed Mr. Jones, an attorney, to prosecute
them for murder at the Commission Court, at which trial, however,
they were acquitted.

We learn from contemporary pamphlets that the feeling among the
upper classes in Dublin was greatly excited about this affair.
Many, especially ladies, strongly took the part of the young men--

The Fellows were the subjects of common obloquy; every little
indiscretion of their former lives was ripped up; everything
they said or did had a wrong turn given to it. Numberless false
stories about them were spread throughout the kingdom. Some of
them were publicly affronted in the Courts of Law by one of his
Majesty’s servants for appearing to do the common offices of
every honest man. One noble Lord declared that a Fellow’s blood
did not deserve an inquisition which might detain a man one day
from his ordinary business. However, the Judges (except one)
all spoke loudly in favour of the College, and specially the
Chief Baron.

Primate Boulter is said to have often appeared astonished when
he heard gentlemen talk as if they were determined to destroy
the Irish seat of learning. It is added that “many did this for
the purpose of injuring religion.” No doubt the true explanation
of the animosity to the College is to be sought in the strong
political feelings which prevailed at the time. The Fellows were
mainly Whigs, and their opponents belonged to the Tory party.

Early in March, 1734/5, the Visitors cited the Provost, Fellows,
and Scholars to appear at a Visitation on the 20th of that month.
Primate Boulter wrote to the Duke of Dorset that--

There have been such difficulties started from the College,
and so much listened to by their Vice-Chancellor, the Bishop
of Clogher [Dr. Stearne], that I fear the Visitation will
not prove such as will answer expectation. I have taken all
opportunities of desiring the Fellows and their friends to
avoid all needless disputes and oppositions for fear of their
falling into the hands of worse Visitors next Session of
Parliament. I hope and fear the best; but things do not promise
very well.

The above cited pamphlet states that “at the late inquiry into
the condition of the College, there could not be discovered more
than two or three insignificant points in which the Statutes were
deviated from by the Fellows.”

To this account we should add that Swift, who disliked and despised Baldwin, took a great interest in the Visitation of 1734, and went down to give his opinion concerning the management of the College, which he thought very bad. He also wrote to the Duke of Dorset on the subject (Jan. 14, 1735). But the fact added by Dr. Stubbs, that after the affair of Ford we hear no more of riots or of insubordination, shows that the mischief was not deep-seated, but caused by some small knot of rowdies. It does not appear that they were led by young men of the higher classes, for though many frequented the College at that time, no names of prominence (save an Annesley) are mentioned in connection with any of the outrages. Such disorders have always been rather the fault of the Governors than of the students of the College. The course of Irish history is so uniform, the temper of the various classes in the nation is so unchanged (as every student of Irish history knows), that I do not believe the discipline which is so easily maintained now in Trinity College was ever seriously endangered, and the very fact that so many brilliant and learned men were being educated there at that period shows that its intellectual life was not impaired. The particular form of the studies pursued cannot be easily estimated. An examination of the Laudian Statutes shows that the authorities were not allowed in any way to change the subjects laid down for the course in 1637. The whole body of the teaching, as already explained, was oral, and each student reproduced in essays or disputations what he had been taught by his tutor during the week. Hence it was that such short books as those written by Dudley Loftus or Narcissus Marsh, though used by lecturers, were not formally proposed to the students. Locke’s Essay, as we know, was introduced into the post-graduate studies by the influence of Ashe and Molyneux before 1700, and has influenced the spirit of the University ever since; but this, too, was outside the prescribed course. It was not till 1760 that, by a special statute, the Provost and Board were permitted to make such changes in the course as they thought expedient. This permission, conceded long after it was needed and indeed assumed,[86] marks an epoch in the history of the College. But it belongs to the reign, not of Baldwin, but of his enlightened and brilliant successor, Andrews.

FOOTNOTES:

[66] A mistake for Loftus, the first Provost. This full-length portrait is now in the Provost’s House. What has become of the second picture is uncertain. The tomb, alas, is now a mere ruin, to be described in another chapter.

[67] This shows how long the project was discussed. The money was not given till ten years later.

[68] The only mention of this house, which was replaced by the present mansion 70 years later.

[69] Dr. Anthony Dopping.

[70] This character, intended to enliven the solemnity of public acts, appears to have been borrowed from the precedent of Oxford. In a curious book intitled _Terræ Filius_ (London, 1726), which consists of a series of satires upon that University, the anonymous author says--“It has, till of late, been a custom, from time immemorial, for one of our family to mount the Rostrum at Oxford at certain seasons [during the Acts of the Term], and divert an innumerable crowd of spectators, who flocked to hear him from all parts, with a merry oration, interspersed with secret history, raillery, and sarcasm.... Several indignities having been offered to the grave fathers of the University, they said to one another--‘Gentlemen, these are no jests; if we suffer this, we shall become the sport of freshmen and servitors. Let us expel him.’ And, accordingly, _Terræ Filius_ was expelled during almost every Act.” And again (p. xi.)--“Though it has, of late years, been thought expedient to lay aside the solemnity of a _Publick Act_, and it is very uncertain when _Terræ Filius_ will be able to regain his antient privileges.”

There is a frontispiece to the book, signed W. Hogarth, which represents an enraged Don tearing in pieces the libel of the _Terræ Filius_, who is in the middle of an excited crowd of collegians and ladies. The author speaks of the seditious spirit of Oxford in the very way that the spirit of Dublin is censured at the same time; and just as the _Terræ Filius_ of Oxford had been censured and persecuted when his jests became libellous, so in Swift’s day, just before the Centenary time, one Jones, an intimate of Swift’s, had been deprived of his degrees for a satire, which Barrett has published as possibly composed by Swift to aid his friend.--_Cf._ Barrett’s _Early Life of Swift_ (London, 1808).

The heads at Oxford, holding public acts in 1712, stopt the mouth of the _Terræ Filius_ (who is called a _statutable_ orator at this solemnity), having intelligence that he designed to utter something in derogation of the Reverend Mr. Vice-Chancellor, _op_. _cit_. p. 100. This is probably the affair spoken of in J. C. Jeaffreson’s _Annals of Oxford_, ii. 224, but referred to the year 1713. Mr. Jeaffreson has a whole chapter on the subject.

[71] I owe to the kindness of Mr. J. R. Garstin my knowledge of this rare tract, of which the title-page is reproduced on page 52; the bidding prayer is given on page 10. A passage which smacks of the 17th century is as follows. The preacher is arguing that Learning can amply satisfy all the aspirations and desires of human nature. He concludes--“Lastly, what Raptures can the _Voluptuous_ man fancy, to which those of _Learning_ and _Knowledge_ are not equal? If he can relish nothing but the pleasures of his _Senses, Natural Philosophy_ exposes the _beautiful bosome_ of the _Universe_, admits him into _Nature’s_ garden, &c.”

[72] The appointment of this Browne is the subject of various curious letters preserved in the Ormonde MSS. at Kilkenny Castle (Vol. 156). I give the first completely, and extracts from the others. They might have been written yesterday.

9644 Trinity College, Dub., May 16, ’99.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR GRACE,

Our Provost in appearance is past recovery, yet I had not so soon made any application to succeed him, but that others have been beforehand with me by another Interest.

Tho’ I have reason to hope for a recommendation of me by Government, yet I am not willing to use any endeavours without your Grace’s knowledge and concurrence. I am sensible it is a place of great trust and importance to the whole kingdom, and if your Grace upon inquiry shall find me qualified to discharge it, I do most humbly beg your Grace’s favour in recommending me to His Majesty for it.--That God may continue, &c., &c., Your humble & obed.

PETER BROWNE.

9645. The Provost of this College being now near his end, which I am heartily sorry for, I presume amongst the many addresses, &c. I beg to recommend the Restoring the same Person to it whom your Grace’s grandfather himself put in, I mean Dr. Huntington, who upon the Dispersion here was as a Father to all that then went over, and provided so well for some of them when they were in England, that 2 of your Bps., viz., Dr. Ashe and Dr. Smith, owe their Preferments in a manner entirely to him, for it was he who laid the foundation of them, tho’ he is now entirely neglected.

This unfortunate Person, for so I must needs call him, except your G^{ce} becomes his Patron, left the College upon the Revolution, or was rather by Providence sent over to provide for those who knew not what to do for themselves. Then he married, &c., but is still capable of the Place by the King’s Dispensation, as Dr. Seele was, at the Restoration, and obtained it in that way. And because this Gentleman has already showed himself one of the most usefull men in that place, and the likelyhood to prove the most serviceable to it now it is in its Rubbish, I now take the confidence, who was employed by the late Duke, my master, to bring him over, &c.

WILL. [Moreton, Bp. of] KILDARE.

[Extracts.] Dub. 6 June, 1699.

9648. The Provost of the Coll. being dead on Sunday night, it will import your G^{ce} as Chancellor to interpose, &c. I know Mr. Peter Browne, who is an eminent preacher & Senior Fellow, &c., will be recommended, &c., &c.

[Sir] RICHARD COX.

9649. Ardhaccan, June 7th.

Our excellent Provost being dead, &c., that you will be pleased to recommend Dr. Owen Lloyd, who is our Div. Prof., or Dr. John Hall, who is Vice-Provost, to his Majesty, &c., &c.

I hear the Lords Justices have recommended one Mr. Peter Browne, who is a S^r Fellow, & has a parish in the City of Dublin, &c., &c.

Nor is it my opinion alone, but that of the Bp. of Clogher (Ashe), who was formerly Provost, & has now earnestly importuned me to address your G. & the Arbp. of Cant. in Dr. Lloyd’s or Dr. Hall’s behalfe, and to Pray your G^{rce} that Mr. Peter Browne, who is much their junior, may not have it, &c., &c. I have sent the Bp.’s letter to His G^{ce} of Cant., in which the late Provost’s opinion of Mr. Browne’s unfitness for the place is fully declared.

RICH. MEATH.

[73] To him and to Swift in this generation, to Goldsmith, Sheridan, and Burke in the next, are due in great part the development of modern English prose. In this, as in so many other ways, the Anglo-Irish have been the masters of the English.

[74] I may recall to the reader the dignified protest of the first Duke of Ormonde, against this very practice, in the interests of the University, above, p. 33.

[75] I remember being told by the late Provost to formulate my protest as soon as possible, for that the demolition of these buildings would be commenced within a fortnight. My argument in their favour was, that while they were perfectly sound, they were also historical evidences of the antiquity of the College, and of its condition in 1700. I remember adding that it might be a very long fortnight before the work of destruction began.

[76] _Cf._ Stubbs, p. 177.

[77] The petition to Parliament in 1787 states “that from an attention to the health and accommodation of their students, petitioners have expended considerable sums of money _in the purchase_ of ground for the enlargement of their park, the enclosing and finishing of which will be attended with considerable expense” (Taylor, p. 95). The fact here officially stated, that the College increased its holding of land in Dublin by purchase during the eighteenth century, is very interesting, and is probably to be explained by searching the Register.

[78] This seems to me one of the boldest acts of Baldwin. We should have expected to find the incompetent workman either employed to repeat his work on the new Hall, or at least pensioned by the Board.

[79] The east end subsided in the present century, and was then rebuilt, in the memory of the present Vice-Provost, from whom I have learned the fact.

[80] The Dublin papers of June, 1744, speak with enthusiasm of the arrival of this great bell, “on which the mere import duty was £20, and which all lovers of harmony allow to be the largest, finest, and sweetest-toned bell in the kingdom. It was cast by the famous Rudhall of Gloucester.”

[81] The picture given by Dr. Stubbs was possibly never realised. There are several extant views of the College subsequent to 1745 and up to 1797, which all represent the belfry as a dome without the lantern or the vane, “consisting of a harp and crown, copper gilt” (Stubbs, p. 187). A rare aquatint of 1784 does, however, give the vane, with other details which are highly improbable. It was a habit to print architects’ drawings of buildings in process of completion, as may be seen in Poole and Cash’s views, in which many plates give the intentions of the architect, which were never carried out.

[82] Mr. Taylor, in his history, has given all the petitions and replies from the Journals of the House of Commons. The following is the summary:--Queen Anne and George I. for Library--in 1709, £5,000; 1717, £5,000; 1721, £5,000. George II. for Parliament Square--1751, £5,000; 1753, £20,000; 1755, £5,000 (£20,000 asked for in the petition): 1757, £5,000; 1759, £10,000. George III., in 1787, £3,000. Between the last two dates considerable sums were obtained from the Board of Erasmus Smith.

[83] While the impossibility of defraying these expenses without a building fund is strongly urged in the various petitions, another set of documents, the King’s Letters, issued for the increase of salaries of Provost, Fellows, and other officers in 1758, 1759, 1761, and subsequently, state as the reason the great increase in the revenues of the College, which justify such changes. No one seems to have thought of comparing these statements with the begging petitions.

[84] No reasons are assigned by Dr. Stubbs, who reports these facts apparently from the Register; but we may infer that the large square Hall over the gate was thought necessary for a Regent House, or Hall for the disputations of the Masters, in place of the older room, which disappeared with the demolishing of decayed buildings; and by this title we know that that Hall was originally known. This alteration of plan would make a dome impossible. As soon as the central dome was abandoned, it would follow that the cupolas, one of which had been already finished, must also be abandoned.

[85] This cannot easily be reconciled with the statement above made (p. 65), that Archbishop Vesey was Vice-Chancellor in the previous year, and in the absence of the Chancellor could act as Visitor.

[86] The facts in Dr. Stubbs’ 10th chapter, especially the classical course of 1736, show that the 15th chapter of the old Statute was liberally interpreted. Indeed Greek and Latin are there prescribed, but the books not specified. In Logic the directions are far more precise. Nor was there any relaxation of the strict directions with regard to Latin Essays and summaries of work, or to Disputations, which certainly lasted till the close of the 18th century.