^{page 1 note a} Samuel Fell, D.D., aged 63 in 1647. Margaret Professor of Divinity in 1626, “he being then a Calvinist. At length, leaving his opinion, became, after great seekinga and cringings, a creature of Dr. Laud, Abp. of Canty, by whose means he was made … Dean of Ch. Ch. in 1638.” (Ath. Ox. iii. 243.) See Introduction for Fell's determined resistance to the Visitors. Few men were more respected by the Royalists.

^{page 2 note a} Ralph Button, M. A., of Merton College, “a good scholar, but a rigid Presbyterian.” (Ath. Ox. iii. 381.) “A good Tutor.” (Ib. iii.959.) “A noted Tutor.” (Fasti, ii. 158.) He was from the first regarded as the most likely man to be useful to the Visitors, and soon became Public Orator, Canon of Christ Church, and Proctor. He had been, when at Exeter College, one of Prideaux's favourite pupils. Ejected at the Restoration, he lived a Nonconformist preacher, and died 1680.

^{page 2 note b} For Sir Nathaniel Brent, see Introduction.

^{page 2 note c} Christopher Rogers, D.D., originally of Magdalen Hall, made Canon of Christ Church, in Gardiner's place, 1647; but not established there till 1649. He had been Principal of New Inn Hall; “a person of most reverend aspect, yet of no parts, …. an easy man, and apt to be guided by the persuasion of others.” (Fasti, , ii. 118.)Google Scholar

[For notes d, e, f, g, see next page.]

^{page 3 note d} John Wilkinson, D.D. Fellow of Magdalen College, and Tutor to Prince Henry. (Fasti, , i. 316Google Scholar). Principal of Magdalen Hall, 1613, President of Magdalen College, 1648. “A person more of beard than learning.” (Annals, 1648.)

^{page 3 note e} John Wilkinson, of Magdalen Hall, M.D. brother of Henry Wilkinson, Junior, and nephew of Dr. John Wilkinson. This “John, the physician, was no writer.” (Fasti, ii. 156.)Google Scholar

^{page 3 note f} Henry Wilkinson, D.D. Senior, nicknamed “Long Harry.” He was a “noted Tutor” of Magdalen Hall before the Great Rebellion. An enthusiastic Parliamentarian, one of the seven Presbyterian preachers of 1646, Visitor 1647, Fellow of Magdalen College, Canon of Ch. Ch., and Margaret Professor of Divinity in succession to Cheynell. “A good scholar, always a close student, an excellent preacher.” (Ath. Ox, iii. 438.) “A violent and impetuous Presbyterian.” (Fasti, ii. 118.) This Henry Wilkinson and Cheynell were punished for preaching against the “Declaration” of Charles I. prefixed, in 1628, to the Thirty-nine Articles. (Annals, 1648.)

^{page 3 note g} Francis Cheynell, D.D. of Merton College, well known through Dr. Johnson's Biography. (Lives of the Poets and Eminent Men.) During the war he showed so much courage and conduct that the colonels obeyed him as if he were a general. His violent kindness to Chillingworth is historical. He occupies a most important place in the Visitation as one of the seven preachers of 1646, Visitor 1647, Margaret Professor of Divinity and President of St. John's 1648. But “he declined the Engagement, and was superseded in all his offices.” (Calamy.) “A violent, impetuous Presbyterian.” (Fasti, , ii. 118Google Scholar) “He was accounted by many, especially those of his party (who had him always in great veneration), a good disputant and preacher …. troubled with a weakness in his head which some in his time called craziness.” (Ath. Ox. iii. 704.) Cheynell died 1665.

^{page 3 note h} Robert Cross, or Crosse, M. A. of Lincoln College, “a great tutor and Aristotelian, and much noted in the University for a learned man.” He refused the Regius Professorship of Divinity in 1648, conformed at the Restoration, and died 1683. Wood also saya he was “a noted philosopher and divine, an able preacher, and well versed in the fathers and schoolmen.” (Ath. Ox. iv. 122.)

For Conant, see Introduction. As he resigned his Fellowship at Exeter College on September 27, 1647, rather than accept the Visitation, and as his biographer (Life, p. 9) asserts that he never once saw Oxford between 1642 and 1649, it would seem that he was appointed without his consent.

^{page 4 note a} Henry Langley, D.D. formerly Fellow of Pembroke, was soon afterwards appointed by the Visitors Master of Pembroke, vice Thomas Clayton deceased; one of the seven preachers of 1646. Ejected at the Restoration, he lived a Nonconformist minister, and died at his native place, Abingdon, in 1679.

^{page 4 note b} George Bradshaw, M.A. appointed July 21, 1648, by the Visitors Master of Balliol, vice Lawrence.

^{page 4 note c} Henry Cornish, D.D. of New Inn Hall, one of the seven preachers of 1646. He was placed in Wall's canonry of Christ Church, and, on Wall's submission, in Sanderson's. He was ejected at the Restoration, lived a Nonconformist minister, and died at Oxford in 1698.

^{page 4 note d} John Blagrave was made by Ordinance of Parliament, on April 12, 1648, Squire Bedell for Divinity, and John Langley for Arts and Physic.

^{page 6 note a} Pembroke was the first of three Colleges in which the Fellows on a vacancy elected a head in the teeth of the Visitors' order to submit to one of their own appointment. The others were New College and Brasenose. Henry Wightwick (or Whitewick) submitted on October 2nd, 1648, and had his dues as Fellow restored to him by the Visitors on February 19, 1649–50. At the Restoration he was “restored” to the Mastership. Several other members of the foundation bearing the same names are mentioned in the Register. They no doubt belonged to the family of Richard Wightwick, B.D. of Balliol, the co-founder of the College in 1624. “The mayor, bailiffs, and burghers of Abendon being appointed the chief persons to execute Mr. Tesdale's will …. made the Hall of Broadgates into a College; which foundation, that they might the better strengthen it, and make it there immovable, they made the Earl of Pembroke, then Chancellor of the University, the godfather of it, and King James the founder, but at the cost and charges of Mr. Tesdale and Wightwick, allowing them only the privilege of foster-fathers.” (Wood's Colleges and Halls, iii. 619.)

^{page 7 note a} Dr. Fell's position as Vice-Chancellor was a very disputable one, even from the point of view of his party; for it was not only that he had not been nominated by the Chancellor, the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, but he had not been nominated at all the previous year, the Marquis of Hertford, Chancellor, having left Oxford at the Surrender. (Fasti.)

This order was “set up on the school gate.” (Annals.)

Publicly stuck up.” “But nobody obeyed, or took notice of that order.” (Annals.)

^{page 8 note a} Wood gives a graphic account of the proceedings of these four commissioners, and of the efforts made by John French, the “Register,” to evade the demand for the register of the University. But having brought the book to his room at Merton, of which college he was a Fellow, and where the Visitors sat, in order to copy, at Dr. Fell's request, the names of the “delegates” recently appointed by the University to “make answer to the Visitors,” his room was entered and the book abstracted. As he was one who “submitted” to the Visitation perhaps the resistance was not so obstinate as it might have been. He seems afterwards to have recanted his submission, as he was one of those expelled for “malignancy” and other delinquencies.

^{page 9 note a} Some remarks on the interval which had elapsed between the Order of October 11, 1647, and that of March 17, 164⅞, will be found in the Introduction. A good deal is said by Wood and Walker on the illegality of the Visitors' proceedings in resuming the Visitation after so long an intermission, as if it had not altogether come to an end in point of law by their failure to adjourn de die in diem; but a fair review of all the circumstances will deprive this objection of any considerable weight.

^{page 10 note a} Richard Gardiner, D.D. “a quaint preacher and orator,” author of many sermons. He lived obscurely in Oxford after his expulsion in 1648, was restored 1660, and died 1670. He was a benefactor to Christ Church, and amongst other things gave the fountain or “aqueduct” in the large quadrangle.

^{page 10 note b} Thomas Iles, D.D. 1619.

^{page 10 note c} John Oliver, D.D.; restored 1660; died 1661. He had been chaplain to Laud. For some account of this “learned, meek, and pious person,” see Kennet's Register, p. 552, and Dr. Bloxam's Register of Magdalen.

^{page 10 note d} Hannibal Potter, D.D. 1630; President of Trinity, 1643; ejected, 1648; restored, 1660; died, 1664.

^{page 10 note e} Richard Baylie, D.D., Chaplain to Charles I. and to Laud; President, 1632; D.D. 1663; Dean of Sarum, 1635; Vice-Chancellor, 1630 and 1637; ejected from St. John's 1648; restored, 1660; died, 1667. “A great sufferer for the King's cause.”—Ath. Ox. iv. 822.

^{page 11 note a} Samuel Ratcliffe, D.D., originally a “Puritanical” tutor of B.N.C. (Fasti, i. 347). Principal, 1614; DD. 1615; ejected, 1647; died, 1648.

^{page 11 note b} For Daniel Greenwood, D.D., the new Principal, see Introduction.

^{page 11 note c} John Pitt, D.D., Warden, 1644; D.D. 1645; ejected, 1648; died, 1648.

^{page 11 note d} See Introduction.

^{page 13 note a} For Henry Tozer see Introduction.

^{page 14 note a} To these questions Tozer replied, on March 27, by what the Visitors voted a “frivolous answer,” and for which they condemned him as “guilty of high contempt.” (Annals.) On that same day Dr. Sheldon, Warden of All Souls, and Dr. Hammond, Canon of Christ Church and Public Orator, being required to acknowledge the authority of the Visitors, gave similar answers; for which, on March 30, they were voted out of their offices, Palmer and Corbet being substituted at All Souls and Christ Church respectively, Corbet was one of the Visitors. John Mills, another of the Visitors, was placed in Dr. John Payne's Prebend (or Canonry) of Christ Church, and Henry Cornish in that of Dr. Wall. The celebrated Dr. Edward Pocock was, by Selden's interest, now made Canon of Christchurch, and Professor of Hebrew, a vacancy having occurred. He did not hold his chair long, as in 1649 he declined to take the “Engagement.” (Ib.)

^{page 14 note b} For Reynolds, see Introduction. In the Order of the Lords and Commons, dated Feb. 18, 1647, and published in Convocation on April 12, 1648, Reynolds is only appointed Vice-Chancellor till August, 1649. Reg. Convoc. T.

^{page 17 note a} On March 31, Sir Thomas Fairfax ordered Lt.-Colonel Kelsey, commanding in Oxford, to “send for some companies of his regiment to Oxon to be aiding arid assisting the Visitors …………… upon which more soldiers came to Oxford, which made the Visitors more bold and peremptory.” (Annals.)

^{page 17 note b} On the day appointed the Visitors, finding the Dean's lodgings closed against them, “sent for Andrew Burrough, Provost Marshal of the Garrison of Oxford, and a guard of musqueteers and others, who being come with hammers and sledges, break open the said doors, wherein finding Mrs. Fell and her children, said that they came in a fair way to her, and desired her to quit her house.” But she refusing, “the Visitors sat in the lodgings till eleven o'clock expecting that the members would appear according to order, but they refusing, except two or three (which were informers), they departed to Merton College.” (Annals.)

^{page 18 note a} Dr. Robert Newlin, restored 1660, died 1687, aged 90. (Fasti, i. 516.)Google Scholar

^{page 18 note b} The lodgings of Dr. Newlin were broken open on this day, and diligently searched, but nothing was found. On the same day Dr. Saunders, Provost of Oriel, being required to make his submission, absconded.

^{page 19 note a} This citation was on April 6th “stuck up on the school doors and other public places.” On the day and time appointed, April 7th, “the bell rung out for Convocation, which done, all the Visitors that were then in the town entered into the Convocation House, expecting all members before-mentioned to meet them there, but finding none but Dr. Hood, Rector of Lincoln College (one that loved to serve the times purposely to save himself and his), who had a just vote, and about ten masters ……… road several votes and orders for the ejectment of the Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, and Proctors, and for the delivery up of the Insignia, &c.” (Annals.)

The Visitors having now tried in vain all peaceable methods of obtaining obedience, wait for the arrival of the Chancellor, who, on April 11th, made a solemn entrance into the University, graphically and sarcastically described by Wood. He also quotes from the Register of Convocation T an account of the proceedings which followed (see Introduction), and the oath which Reynolds the new Vice-Chancellor, took in Convocation to “observe the Statutes, Liberties, Privileges, and Customs rightly established of this University, in a way subordinate to the authority and power of Parliament, as far as you are thereunto called by the place and office whereunto you are now admitted.” Some honorary degrees were then conferred, several of the Visitors and new Heads of Houses admitted to degrees, and the new Bedells, who had been created by ordinance of Parliament, nominated. The Vice-Chancellor is presented by the Chancellor with a seal of office, but the “gooda belonging to the Vice-Chancellor,” as well as the Bedells' staves of office, were not found for two years. In Sept. 1649, the Colleges are ordered to subscribe for new staves in order to remedy this “great dishonour of the University.” (Annals.)

^{page 20 note a} Mrs. Tell, refusing to accept even the orders of the Chancellor, was carried out into the quadrangle by soldiers on a chair, and there left with her children. Morley, Payne, Hammond, and others conducted her out of the great gates to Carfax. Her husband, when released from prison, retired with her to Sunningwell, near Abingdon, for the short remainder of his life. He died of the shock produced by hearing of the King's “execution.”

^{page 21 note a} For an account of Sheldon and the proceedings at All Souls see Wood's Annals, and “Worthies of All Souls” by the Editor of this Register.

^{page 21 note b} The Visitation of Magdalen preceded that of All Souls on the same day, April 13th; and a similar process had taken place there, Dr. John Wilkinson having been installed in Dr. Oliver's lodgings. As none of the members of the college, except “one Mr. John Dale, Jnn.” attended the summons, the above Order was made out the same evening. Wadham College was visited after All Souls, and John Wilkins' name entered in the buttery book as Warden instead of Dr. Pitt's. Trinity was taken next in order, and “old Mr. Harris, of Hanwell,” one of the Visitors, put in possession of Dr. Potter's lodgings. St. John's came next, Dr. Baylie being superseded by another Visitor, Francis Cheynell. This gives Wood an opportunity for relating an amusing colloquy between Dr. Baylie and Sir William Cobb, one of the Visitors, very much to the discomfiture of the latter. Lastly took place the Visitation of Brasenose, when Dr. Radcliffe was superseded by Daniel Greenwood.

On April 14, as the “Scholars of Christchurch” had torn out of the buttery-book the recent entry of the names of the new Dean and Canons, the Visitors proceeded thither once more and reentered them. The Chancellor, satisfied with the vigorous proceedings of the three days he had spent at Oxford, now left for London.

Dr. John Wilkins, the new Warden of Wadham, became Master of Trinity Coll. Cambridge. 1659, and Bishop of Chester, 1668. He receives the highest praise as a philosopher, divine, and courtier from Wood, Burnet, Kennet, and others. Wood “cannot say that there was anything deficient in him but a constant mind and settled principles.” (Ath. Ox. iii. 968). He was the son of an Oxford goldsmith, and married Cromwell's sister. For Dr. Harris, the new president of Trinity, see Introduction.

^{page 22 note a} “This Order,” says Wood, “was not at present regarded.” Convocations were held by the new Vice-Chancellor on April 14th and 15th, at which numerous degrees were conferred. Thirty-seven men were made Masters of Arts. It shows the predominance of “Puritanism” at Magdalen and New Inn Halls that out of the above number 17 members of those Societies received the degree of Master. Several Cambridge men were made Bachelors of Arts. Thus the Visitors had begun at last to surround themselves with men of their own side, and now proceed to the reorganization of each College under its new Head.

^{page 24 note a} This fresh Order was the effect of a Report made in person by Cheynell and Wilkinson to the London Committee. “They make a horrible clamour against the University,” says Wood. On receiving that Report the London Committee made an Order, which, on April 25th, “was stuck up in severall public places in Oxford,” that the Visitors should “send a new summons to the Fellows and Officers of Colleges, and if they do not appear, or appearing shall not submit to the authority of Parliament in this Visitation,” the Visitors should suspend them, and the Committee may “on certificate thereof,” remove or deprive them. This is the foundation of the further proceedings which occupy the larger portion of the Register.

^{page 25 note a} Mr. Palmer, son of the lawyer, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, so well known in Charles II.'s reign, was committed to prison on April 14th for insulting the Visitors when they reinserted the names of the new Dean and Canon in the Christchurch Buttery-book. He attempted to press in past the Guard of Musqueteers, and being prevented, shouted out: “Why? are you ashamed that any should see what you do?” He was probably one of the “Scholars” who had previously torn out the leaf.

^{page 28 note a} The names of all members of Colleges and Halls which follow are printed as they appear in the Register. In the Table at the end of this book the spelling is corrected, and the names identified, wherever information has been obtainable from the College Registers.

^{page 28 note b} The significance of each of the following answers is afterwards determined by joint agreement between the London Committee and the Visitors.

^{page 28 note c} Daniel Caple's submission was interpolated on Oct. 18. His first answer was given on May 5 (p. 45), and was a Non-submission.

^{page 29 note a} Hobbs' second answer was interpolated on July 26. His change of mind gave him and the Visitors some trouble. (See below.)

^{page 32 note a} John Fell, D.D. son of Dr. Samuel Fell, Dean of Ch. Ch. (For his earlier work at Ch. Ch. see Introduction.) Dean of Ch. Ch., 1660; Bishop of Oxford, 1676. As Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, in 1666–1669, he contributed greatly to the restoration of the University from disorder; he was a great benefactor to Ch. Ch. Wood describes him as “the most zealous man of his time for the Church of England, a great encourager and promoter of learning in the University, and of all public works belonging thereunto; of great resolution and exemplary charity; of strict integrity; a learned divine; and excellently skilled in the Latin and Greek languages.” He was the author of several considerable works. He died in 1686.

^{page 32 note b} Richard Allestree, D.D.: Canon of Ch. Ch., 1660; Reg. Prof, of Div., 1663; Provost of Eton, 1665; died 1680. He is chiefly known for his extraordinary zeal and courage in the Royal cause during the Civil War, and for his success as Provost of Eton, to which institution he was a benefactor. Dr. John Pell wrote his Life.

^{page 34 note a} Wood gives the titles and beginnings of several of these pamphlets and fly-sheets.

^{page 35 note a} It is scarcely necessary to remark that “Ds” (Dominus) is equivalent to “Sr” (Senior), or “Sir,” as it is often written in this Register, and denotes the Bachelor's Degree. “Mr.” not only denotes the Master's Degree, but is also the title by courtesy of those who are neither Bachelors nor Masters.

^{page 36 note a} This is the famous physician, Sydenham. He was soon afterwards appointed a Fellow of All Souls. See Worthies of All Souls.

^{page 37 note a} Theophilus Gale, of Magdalen Hall; Fellow of Magdalen Coll. 1650: chiefly known by his “Court of the Gentiles:” “a person of great reading, an exact philologist and philosopher;” “a good metaphysician and school divine;” “wholly addicted to Nonconformity.” “He left all his real and personal estate for the education and benefit of poor Presbyterian and Independent scholars.” Ath. Ox. iii. 1149.

^{page 40 note a} See below, and Introduction.

^{page 43 note a} Josias Banger's case differs from most. He “desired a little time” on May 5th, 1648, which was held equivalent to a refusal to submit. On May 15th his expulsion is ordered. On June 1st he is heard again, and gives another refusal, with a quotation “hoc tantum scio, me nihil scire.” On June 14th he is to be expelled by order of the London Committee. On Nov. 9th he is heard again, submitting without reservation; and a special order declares that having been “put out for undue election, he was this day chosen again into Magdalen College.” Indeed if the day of his appointment is correctly entered he was already reappointed on Oct. 10th. He must have had some powerful interest. His subsequent career was that of a zealous Nonconformist Minister, as we learn from Bloxham's Register of Magdalen.

^{page 46 note a} On this day Wood reports that the soldiers made a strict search for arms in all he Colleges, and seized many.

^{page 53 note a} Wood remarks of the following list, that out of 52 who appeared “but one [Dr. Vivian] did positively submit, yet some that did not continued in their places by friends and cringing to the Committee.” (Annals.)

^{page 53 note b} This objection is made by nearly the whole College. The Parliamentary answer was, no doubt, that the prohibition in the Statutes referred to the Commissaries employed by the Statutable Visitor, but could not be said to meet the case of Visitors who were themselves appointed by the Government.

^{page 54 note a} Afterwards Bishop of Llandaff (1679).

^{page 60 note a} As there is only one W. Standard on the rolls of Exeter College, this second answer is probably a part of that given above. See Boase's Register of Exeter College, 1879.

^{page 61 note a} Afterwards the famous Lord Clifford of the Cabal Ministry.

^{page 65 note a} Of the following ten members of Oriel, Wood says: “Though they did not directly submit, yet the greater part of them kept their places by the same means that others did.” (Annals.)

^{page 68 note a} “Robert Whitehall, a time-serving and pot-poet of that House.” He is said to have answered:—

“My name's Whitehall, God bless the poet;

If I submit the King shall know it.”

“which person was soon after ejected; but by cringing and flatteries made to Richard Ingoldsby, the regicide, the Committee for the Reformation of the University put him into the Society of Merton College, an. 1650, where he yet remains (and so he will to his dying day).” (Annals.)

^{page 72 note a} This answer is of the exact form which, by agreement between the Visitors and the London Committee, was to carry expulsion, and Philip Henry's name is accordingly found amongst those of persons ordered to be expelled; but nothing of the sort happened to him. The Earl of Pembroke, the Chancellor, was his godfather, and “by his favour he was continued in his Student's place” (Life by his son, reprinted in Wordsworth's Eccles. Biog. vi. 138). This eminent Nonconformist, whom we have already quoted in the Introduction, was the father of the still more celebrated Matthew Henry, the commentator. Kichard Bryan, his intimate friend, also kept his place in spite of his negative answer; and there were, no doubt, many similar cases.

^{page 73 note a} Wood tells us something further as to Richard Howe's answer:—“Mr. Cheynell thereupon asked him, ‘Are not you a Scholar?’ Howe answered, ‘Yes, and so are all freshmen,’ adding this, ‘Would not you Dr. Wilkinson, and you Dr. Rogers, take it ill to be called Scholars?” There was no more said; only some smiled, and the rather let him so pass, because the University never took those Doctors to be any scholars, only persons of beard and reverence.” (Annals.)

^{page 73 note b} (See p. 74.)

^{page 74 note a} Edward Terry's repentance was so acceptable to his superiors that in Jan. 1649–50, he was elected Student “ex communi consensu,” a rare distinction, Students being appointed by the nomination of the Dean and Canons in rotation. It will be seen that the Visitors insist on his having his full rights.

^{page 74 note b} This seems to have been a sort of unofficial entry, interpolated at a much lafer date by favour of the “Register.”

^{page 74 note c} For Thomas Barlow see Introduction.

^{page 77 note 1} This cordial acceptance prepares us for the subsequent recommendation of Mr. Thornton by the Visitors for a Corpus Scholarship.

^{page 80 note a} Chibnall “remained a prisoner till Oct. 10th following, and then, upon a bond of £200, he was released conditionally he make his appearance when he should be summoned by the Visitors.” (Annals.)

^{page 80 note b} It is curious that Wood (Annals) does not refer to this Order, in connection with the story he tells against Dr. Harris and his seizure of two bags of money found about the same time next year on pulling down some “old boards and shelves” at Trinity. Is it possible that the two accounts relate to the same treasure-trove? There is no greater discrepancy between a “box” and “two bags covered with dust,” than usually attends the “improvement” of a scandalous story.

^{page 81 note a} This is the ex-Register; but he gradually relapses, for in Nov. 1649, he is one of the four Fellows of Merton, who, “according to the manner, with a Tertiavit, drank the King“s health, standing bare” (see below, and the Annals). And on Jan. 22, 1650, he is discovered to be guilty of drinking, swearing, and a “malignant spirit against the honest partie,” so that he is at last expelled. He had evidently not been conciliated by the loss of his place.

^{page 81 note b} Ralph Button having already taken such a prominent part in the Visitation, it must only have been by way of example to the others that he went through the form of submission.

^{page 82 note a} Richard Phillips recanted on the same day (p. 86), but was deprived of his Postmastership notwithstanding.

^{page 84 note a} This is Ralph Austen's first signature as Deputy Register to Kewhouse, who was absent in London, “attending upon his master.” Austen was of Magdalen College, and had been Proctor in 1630 (Annals).

^{page 84 note b} For the answer of the Committee see p. 88.

^{page 85 note a} Thankful Owen, one of the Delegates to the Visitors (p. 3); President of St. John's, 1650.

^{page 88 note a} The Orders from the London Committee which here begin to appear from time to time will be placed according to their date among the Orders by Visitors. They could not of course hare arrived on the day of their issue, but their connection with events will be far more easily understood when so placed than when entered with every possible irregularity as they are in the original, often weeks after they have been already dealt with by the Visitors.

^{page 92 note a} John Dolben, D.D.: Bishop of Rochester, 1666; Archbishop of York, 1683; a distinguished Royalist soldier; associated with Fell and Allestree in keeping up the Church Services in Oxford during the Visitation.

^{page 97 note a} Nevertheless he is one of those ordered to be expelled (p 144).

^{page 100 note a} Perhaps for some special vehemence of demeanour; for, outspoken and defiant as his answer is, it is scarcely more so than those given at this time by the rest of the College. See Introduction. There were other fellows and scholars who refused to submit, besides those entered in this place; but more seem to have submitted than Sir Leoline Jenkins supposed. (See Life of Mansell).

^{page 102 note a} Wood, we see, is inaccurate here in asserting of Balliol that “not one except the cook submitted.” (Annals).

^{page 102 note b} The “kingdom” here referred to is Ireland. Washington, having been a Fellow of University, had become Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, from whence he retired when the Irish rebellion broke out, and was re-admitted to his fellowship at University College. “He was the only man of the old stock left therein” at this period (Fasti, i. 469). He was one of the twenty Delegates now appointed, May 19, by the Proctors, quorum vel major pars vel ad minimum ex iis decem deliberent et statuant et in nomine Universitatis respondeant in universum de omnibus quæ ad rem Academiæ publicam pertinent. They are not printed by Wood; but, as they may be considered the leading men of the University at this time, their names are worth extracting from Eeg. Convoc. T. They are as follows:— Doctors: Harris, Corbett, Pelham, Vivian, and Palmer. Masters: Williamson, Washington, Mills, Pocock, Greenwood, Wilkinson, Cheynell, Sparkes, Cornish, Langley, Wilkins, Copley, Owen, Clifford, Martin, together with the Vice Chancellor and Proctors. Washington died in 1651. See below.

^{page 103 note a} The Muster of his College at n later date, when it was sung in the streets —“Old Obadiah sings Ave-maria.” He had no scruples about the “Visitation” of James II.

^{page 105 note a} The Lady Margaret Lecture in succession to Dr. Lawrence, Master of Balliol; the Presidentship of St. John's, in succession to Dr. Baylie. The revenues of the Mathematical Lectureship were probably given him temporarily to eke ont that of the Headship, which was very poor, and in aid of which a part of Sir W. Paddy's bequest was afterwards applied.

^{page 105 note b} For Michael Roberts see note below, and Introduction.

^{page 105 note c} For Dr. Mansell see note below, and Introduction.

^{page 110 note a} This is Henry Wilkinson, junior, who is generally distinguished by the name of “Dean Harry” from Henry Wilkinson, senior, “Long Harry,” the more prominent and important of the two, Canon of Christchurch, and Margaret Professor of Divinity. “Dean Harry,” here made Fellow of Magdalen, becomes Principal of Magdalen Hall at this period. Neal, in his History of the Puritans, has confused the two Henry Wilkinsons, which is not surprising, especially as Dr. John Wilkinson, the Visitor, and President of Magdalen, who also had been Principal of Magdalen Hall, adds to the chances of confusion. There was a fourth Wilkinson (John) a layman “of Bucks, gent.” (Annals), who was a Visitor as well as Dr. John, and Henry Wilkinson, senior. He was brother to this Henry Wilkinson, junior; and they were nephews of Dr. John Wilkinson—a family party. See note to p. 3.

^{page 113 note a} This and the two immediately preceding Orders of May 26 were “posted up 27th of the said month.” (Annals.) It must be admitted that they were necessary under the circumstances.

^{page 114 note a} The Visitors had no resource but force, as will be seen by the following notes from Wood's Annals: On May 27th the Order placed by the Visitors on the gate of Corpus Christi College to depose Dr. Newlin, the President, was torn down by some members of the College. On May 29th, the birthday of Prince Charles, bonfires were lit in defiance of Parliament, at New College and Trinity, for which the offenders at the former were imprisoned. On May 30th, “on account of the great resort of persons to Dr. Sheldon in prison, and to Dr. Hammond,” these eminent men, whom the harassed University was now constantly consulting, were ordered by the London Committee to be removed to Wallingford Castle; the governor of which Castle, however, refused to receive them. On June 4, Mr. Henry Tozer, the expelled sub-rector of Exeter, was fetched out of Carfax Church by a guard of soldiers, and his ministry there inhibited “because he seduced the people.” It may here be noticed that on May 27th the Houses of Lords and Commons issued two important Orders concerning the University: (1) “That the Committee shall have power to send for in custody, and to imprison, any such persons as shall be found under contempt of the authority of Parliament; and (2) That the Visitors shall have power to take away and destroy all such pictures, images, crucifixes, or reliques, which should be adjudged by them to be superstitious or idolatrous.”

^{page 117 note a} Birkhead was the founder of the Oxford Chair of Poetry. As a Scholar of Trinity he had been induced by the Jesuits to join the Church of Rome; had been reclaimed by Laud's personal influence, and through him had obtained his All Souls Fellowship. These fluctuations indicate the tone of mind and character which caused him first to submit; then to retract, as here, for which he is set down for expulsion; yet finally to remain in his place, as appears later on. Warton, the best of judges, speaks of him as “an elegant scholar and ingenious Latin poet.” (Life of Bathurst, p. 160.) After the Restoration he became Registrar of the diocese of Norwich.

^{page 117 note b} The only institution in Oxford known under four organic changes. Founded as Aula Cervina, or Hart Hall, in 1282, it was chartered as Hertford College in 1740; dissolved from insufficiency of endowments in 1805; its sibe and part of its endowments transferred, in 1816, to Magdalen Hall, when that institution (founded as a dependency of Magdalen College 1480, and becoming an independent Hall in 1602) broke up from its old quarters; and finally, by the exertions of the Principal, Dr. Michell, and the munificence of Mr. Thomas Baring, M.P. it was again chartered as “Hertford College” in 1874, with a splendid foundation for 14 fellows and 29 scholars. It now awaits the creation of suitable buildings, which must as a matter of course follow.

All the Halls alike are wholly in favour of the Parliament, but Magdalen and New Inn Halls are the only ones which contained any number of members at this period, the war having been ruinous to these poor foundations. Why was this distinction from the Colleges so strongly marked? Did it represent a spirit of opposition to the great Foundations which overshadowed them, or was it the effect of personal influences? It could not be accidental.

^{page 118 note a} This is the strongest case we have of a place being retained in spite of nonsubmission. Wood tells us, “Dr. Saunders kept his place till the time of his death (165⅔) by friends in the Committee.” (Annals.) It is however easy to observe at this time grounds for the suspicion whiqh was once expressed in the line—

“Methinks the lady doth protest too much.”

^{page 121 note a} This is the celebrated Dr. Bathurst, President of Trinity from 1664 to 1704, Chaplain to Charles II. and Dean of Wells. He was one of the founders of the Royal Society. Long subsequent to his submission, he thus accounted for it: “I was constantly in Oxford, amongst other the King's loyal subjects, from the beginning of the wars in 1642 until the town was surrendered in 1646. The articles of that surrender, as they left other persons to their respective compositions, so they subjected the University to a Visitation.… . When the Visitation passed upon us I thought I had no more to do but to sit still and rest content with whatever befel under a prevailing party; yet neither owning their authority, nor concurring in my principles with them; but rather acting separately from them.… . It was my fortune to escape, as many others, persons of unquestionable loyalty, did—Dr. Barlow, Dr. Langbaine, Dr. Zouch, Dr. Say, &c.—with whom and such like I had my constant converse, and scarce knew or was known to any of the whole party. (Life, &c, by Thomas Warton, p. 205.) It should also be said that Bathurst, though ordained priest daring the Commonwealth, did signal service to the State as physician to the sick and wounded of the Navy (see below), yet remained in close connection with the leading Royalists and exiled clergy. When his services were required to assist Skinner, Bishop of Oxford, in those secret Ordinations which he courageously performed, regardless of the danger he incurred, Bathurst found his professional visits as a physician a useful pretext.

^{page 121 note b} See below.

^{page 124 ntoe a} He is now recalled, though explicit enough on the previous day. He was voted dangerous.

^{page 125 note a} The President's lodgings had to be broken open on this occasion. (Annals.)

^{page 125 note b} The Tower was also the Treasury of All Souls, and probably of other Colleges, as their most defensible part.

^{page 126 note a} Dr. Stringer, Greek Lecturer to the University, had been elected Warden by the Fellows of New College, 1647, in defiance of the Visitors, on the demise of Dr. Pink, and, though refusing submission, he contrived to hold his place till Jan. 25. 164, when he was at last superseded by Dr. Marshall. The Visitors found it very difficult to deal with New College. They ejected Stringer from his Lectureship on Sept. 14, 1648; this was an easier matter. Marshall was Parliamentary Chaplain to the garrison of Oxford. He had been “a Cambridge Student of Divinity for twenty years at least.” (Fasti, , ii. 114.)Google Scholar

^{page 128 note a} Graves, or Greaves, was Fellow of Merton and Professor of Astronomy. His case occupies many pages of the Register, French and he haying mutually accused each other of helping the King to obtain the Merton treasure. Various other peccadilloes with the courtiers and Queen's confessor are laid to Grayes's charge (see below), and he seems to have been instrumental in the ejection of Sir Nathaniel Brent by the King.

^{page 129 note a} Dr. Langbaine's answer is not given, bnt he submitted. His case was referred to in the note on Dr. Bathurst as that of a decided Royalist and Churchman, who yet thought it right to give way to the power of Parliament. See Introduction.

^{page 130 note a} In spite of this negative answer Acland remained in his place till 1651, when he declined the Engagement, and retired with his pupils—among whom was young George Bull—to Somersetshire. Nelson attributes much of Bull's subsequent eminence to the teaching of Acland, a man “very considerable for his learning and piety, zealous for his sovereign when so many of his subjects and friends forsook him, and true to the interest of the Church in her most afflicted circumstances” (Life of Bull, Works, vii. 9). He had been senior Proctor in the eventful year 1641. It is remarkable that a man of such principles should have found so much favour with the Visitors as to call forth the Order which appears below, a week after permission had been given to Exeter to elect its own Rector. That Order certainly suggests Acland to the Fellows as an acceptable candidate, and appears to be another instance of a nearer approximation between the learned and religious men of both parties than is generally supposed to have existed. Perhaps Acland did not desire the office. We do not hear of his receiving any votes. The election fell upon John Conant, the uncle of the John Conant who has been already noticed; but he, not wishing to reside, declined in favour of his nephew, the candidate of the minority, who was soon afterwards elected. (See Conant's Life and Boase's Reg. Exon.)

^{page 132 note a} “A person very scandalous, as by the generality accounted.” (Annals.) This may or may not be true.

^{page 134 note a} Dr. Robert Sanderson. The life of this great man by Isaak Walton has made his history too familiar to require further notice. Perhaps he may share with Hammond the highest place amongst the learned Eoyalists of this period. With Sheldon, Hammond, and Morley he attended Charles I. to the last; at the Restoration he became Bishop of Lincoln.

^{page 134 note b} This is the list referred to at p. 131.

^{page 136 note a} “This was purposely to prevent the solemnity that was to be performed at Dr. Radcliffe's funeral, lately dead. For it must bo known that it hath beene the custom, time out of mind, that when any head of house, doctor, or master of considerable degree, was to be buried, the University bellman was to put on the gown and formalities of the person defunct, and with his bell go into every College and Hall, and there make open proclamation (after two tings with his bell): That forasmuch as God had been pleased to take out of the world such a person, he was to give notice to all persons of the University that on such a day, and at such an hour, he was solemnly to be buried,” &c. (Annals.) No traces of these customs have survived.

^{page 139 note a} This and the following Order were issued in order to prevent Elections of Scholars, which should, by Statute, be made the next day. With reference to the first, Mr. Tozer, who had been expelled on May 26, was now imprisoned for refusing to surrender the College keys and books, but was afterwards released on condition that the said keys and books should not be conveyed out of the College. Decisive orders were necessary; for on this very day, June 29, Dr. Radcliffe having died three days previously, “the Society [of Brasenose], takeing no notice that the Visitors had entered Mr. Greenwood Principal, put up a citation on their door, as by Statute they were required, to summon the Fellows to election. The “Visitors thereupon send for Mr. Thomas Sixsmith, and two more Fellows of that House, to command them to surcease and submit to their new Principal, Mr. Greenwood; but they gave them fair words, went home, and after four days choose among themselves, in a Fellow's chamber, at the west end of the old library, Mr. Thomas Yate, one of the Society.” (Annals.) The right of election was vested in the six senior Fellows, whose names were Ealph Byrom, Thomas Church, Edmund Highfield, Robert Jones, John Newton, and Thomas Sixsmith. Yate was immediately superseded by Greenwood; but at the Restoration the election was held to be valid, and the “Fellows' Principal” was “restored.” See Introduction.

^{page 141 note a} Master of University and Professor of Divinity.

^{page 141 note b} President of Corpus.

^{page 141 note c} Principal of Brasenose.

^{page 141 note d} Warden of Wadham.

^{page 141 note e} Of Pembroke College, one of the seven Preachers of 1646.

^{page 141 note f} Of New Inn Hall, one of the seven Preachers.

^{page 141 note g} Warden of All Souls.

^{page 141 note h} Professor of Divinity, 1648.

^{page 141 note i} Prebendary of Ch. Ch. and Public Orator.

^{page 141 note j} Of Exeter College, a Delegate to the Visitors.

^{page 141 note k} Of Lincoln College, a Delegate to the Visitors.

^{page 141 note l} Of Merton College, a Delegate to the Visitors.

^{page 141 note m} Of Exeter College, a Delegate to the Visitors.

This was a very competent Committee. That there was a temporary necessity for superseding the Statutes must, from the point of view of the Visitors, be admitted. The results justified the selection and the subsequent action of the Committee.

^{page 142 note a} This is the list of answers mentioned at p. 131, as “not yet returned” on June 6.

^{page 143 note a} Two days previous to this Order, on July 5, an Order from the Lieutenant-Governor of Oxford was published by beat of drum at every College, to the effect that “in consequence of divers affronts to the soldiery of this garrison, as firing at the guard, and causing alarums in the city,” all whose names had been publicly posted up as expelled should depart that day from Oxford on pain of being treated as spies. On July 11, the Notice of July 5 having been repeated at each College by a guard of soldiers and beat of drum, and supported by the Visitors' Order of July 7, “the most part obeyed, but some undergoing the brunt were imprisoned, whilst others absconded for several weeks.” (Annals.) It is here that Wood makes the reflections on the harshness of the clerical Visitors, as compared with the laymen, which have been noticed in the Introduction.

^{page 145 note a} “Soon after restored on his compliance.” (Annals.)

^{page 145 note b} “Afterwards complying, was restored to his Fellowship in 1652” (Ib.); but by the College books he does not appear to have been restored till 1660.

^{page 145 note c} “Complying, was restored to his Fellowship 1650.” (Ib.)

^{page 146 note a} Fulman and Parker had “blotted” and “torn out” the name of Dr. Stanton, the new President of Corp. Chr. Coll., which the Visitors, on July 11, had entered in the Buttery Book, vice Dr. Newlin. William Fulman was the well-known antiquarian. (Ath. Oxon. ii. 624.) Wood remarks that these three Corpus men were now the only persons expelled for some months.

^{page 158 note a} Though evidently a summary of the preceding answers, several names do not appear. It has not been thought necessary to print the copy of these negative answers which appears on p. 212 of the Register. The only difference is that the name of Dr. Stringer is omitted in the latter place, he being dealt with separately.

^{page 167 note a} This Order is repeated, with some additions, on Aug. 3 (p. 181). Thomas Lawrence, D.D, Master of Balliol and Margaret Professor, is greatly praised by Wood for his learning (Ath. Ox. III. 437). He had formerly been Chaplain to Charles I. He seems to hare resigned his offices, in which he was succeeded by Cheynell (May 19, 1648), and Bradshaw (July 21, 1648). At any rate he lived in poverty and obscurity till 1657.

^{page 168 note a} This form is substantially a repetition of the previous one of July 14, with the omission of the words “with the consent of the Governor of — College, in Oxon.” The Visitors, on second thoughts, determined to act for the present without reference to Heads of Houses.

^{page 169 note a} This list is so arranged in the Register as to admit of later entries being added from time to time.

^{page 169 note b} A synonym in ordinary use for “Scholar of Winton.”

^{page 171 note a} Soon afterwards made Fellow of Magdalen; son of the Vice-Chancellor. He was afterwards Archdeacon of Norwich.

^{page 175 note a} It is doubtful, from their place on the Register, whether these two Scholars belong to St. John's or Exeter; but probably to the former.

^{page 175 note b} Samuel, nephew of Dr. John Conant, Rector in 1649.

^{page 180 note a} The proper order was that, in default of (1) and (2), those might be elected who had formerly been one year at Winchester College.

^{page 180 note b} For Hammond, see Introduction

^{page 186 note a} Lewis Du Moulin, M.D. son of the more celebrated Peter Du Moulin, a voluminous author, and, according to Wood, “a fiery, violent, and hot-headed Independent.” Fasti, , ii. 128Google Scholar. He died 1680.

^{page 187 note a} For Hoyle, see Introduction. For Crosse, see p. 3.

^{page 188 note a} For the proper date of this Order see p. 190. The comparatively courteous nature of the communications held with the uncompromising Sheldon must be supposed due to the skill he had evinced in his dealings with the Visitors, as well as to the place he had taken as acknowledged leader of his party, and his popularity with them. In the Wood MSS. F. 35, there is abundant evidence of the deference paid to Sheldon by the University, as might be expected from his welltried independence of character, dexterity, and dignified manners. See also below; and Worthies of A.S. p. 196 (where, however, “houses” should read “horses”).

^{page 188 note b} The Christchurch Almshouse has very lately been dissolved. The buildings are at present appropriated to the residence of the treasurer of Christchurch.

« The delay which had occurred in settling the new Master may be accounted for by the notices of the old one (pp. 169, 181). We have no information as to the motives of Dr. Lawrence in resigning and submitting; but the second certificate may have had some effect in creating the actual vacancy. There was still a difficulty somewhere; for it was not till Oct. 20 that the Order for Bradshaw's Admission was given. In that Order his appointment is said to have been made by an “Ordinance of Parliament;” it is not registered.

^{page 189 note a} Dr. John Wall, Canon of Ch. Ch. 1632, “a quaint preacher and severe student”; a benefactor of the City of Oxford. (Ath. Ox. iii. 734.) His portrait is accordingly in the Council Chamber of the City.

^{page 190 note a} See page 6.

^{page 191 note a} See Introduction.

^{page 192 note a} Whittacre was not a Member of New College.

^{page 193 note a} Wood ascribes the delay which had occurred in the expulsion of the following persons, partly to the circumstance that the Visitors were getting in their tithes, and partly, with more probability, to the insurrection of the Royalists in England, Scotland, and Wales, sometimes called the Second Civil War. He describes a plot laid in Oxford itself in July by certain scholars, privileged persons, and citizens, for the relief of Colchester; its discovery and consequences. (Annals.)

^{page 194 note a} Sir John Birkenhead—for he was knighted at the Restoration—was a man of some mark. His ephemeral writings had largely served the Koyal cause in the war; and “the Loyal Poet” of Charles II.'s reign was not only an active pamphleteer but an important Member of Parliament and champion of the Church. (See W. of All Souls, p. 200, Grey's Debates, and the Parliamentary History.)

^{page 194 note b} Baldwin “kept his place afterwards by application to Kelsey, Dcpnty-Governor” (Annals), or rather, according to Ath. Ox. iv. 334, Kelsey's wife.

^{page 194 note c} See W. of All Souls, and Monument in cloisters of All Souls.

^{page 194 note d} See Life of Dr. Mansell, by Sir L. Jenkins, p. 29.

^{page 196 note a} Canopias, or Conopins, became Bishop of Smyrna, circa 1650. (Annals.)

^{page 198 note a} This is the famous divine, Dr. Daniel Brevint, Jersey Fellow; afterwards Dean of Lincoln.

^{page 200 note a} Or Professorship of Astronomy.

^{page 200 note b} Removed also from his Professorship of Geometry. Turner had been distinguished in connection with the Laudian Statutes and Cycle. He had afterwards served in the war as a volunteer under Sir John Byron, and been taken prisoner.

^{page 200 note c} “This as to the staves was not done; for, if I am not mistaken, they got four or five about two years after.” (Annals.)

^{page 203 note a} See note to p. 243.

^{page 209 note a} Several Fellows were appointed on Oct. 27. The Welsh College enjoys the unique distinction of requiring the aid of the Provost Marshal to establish the new comers. See Introduction.

^{page 210 note a} This no doubt means in the College Chapel or Hall, where the Members met for the purpose. Colleges retained the practice of a public periodical reading of their Statutes down to quits recent times.

^{page 211 note a} An ingenious device for making use of Mr. Tozer, who was evidently very necessary to his college. A “traveller's allowance” was, originally, £6 13s. 4d. a year. (Boase's Reg. Coll. Exon. lvi.) It was assigned by Sir W. Petre for the support of one Fellow on his Foundation, who was to reside four years at some foreign University, for the purpose of studying Civil Law or Medicine. It was soon afterwards, in Tozer's case, raised to an equality with that of the other Fellowships.

^{page 213 note a} The Negative Oath abjuring all connection with the King, his council, or officers, and submitting to the Parliament without reservation.

^{page 213 note b} A decided accession of severity is observable in these Orders. The grand tragedy was drawing to its close, and the question of Oxford submission could no longer be trifled with.

^{page 214 note a} There were two Griffins at All Souls, but both were College servants. This was the “mistake.”

^{page 214 note b} This concession to the peccant beadles produced no more effect than the previous threats. A year later the colleges are requested to “lend what sums of money they shall think fitt” in order to buy staves.

^{page 217 note a} Lord Say was of Founder's kin. and had been a Fellow of New College; he was now a leading statesman.

^{page 217 note b} This Order was necessitated by the irregularity of the previous year, when Joshua Crosse and Ralph Button had been made Proctors for the purposes of the Visitation, passing over New College and All Souls, which “malignant” Colleges could not then be trusted to provide fit men. The order of the Caroline Cycle was not strictly observed again till 1662.

^{page 218 note a} “They and the whole table where they sat in Christchurch Hall, drank the King's health, standing up and bareheaded.” (Annals.)

^{page 218 note b} For Hakewill, a person of considerable note, see Boase's Reg. Col. Exon. passim, as also for the Fellows whose names appear at the foot of the Petition.

^{page 219 note a} Exeter is the first college admitted to self-government. For some remarks on its history and condition see Introduction.

^{page 221 note a} See note to p. 130.

^{page 221 note b} See note to p. 217. Both of these were rejected. Bew, or Beaw, was the Fellow of New College who afterwards became Bishop of Llandaff. Allanson was certainly not a Fellow of All Souls, and seems to have been the Fellow of New College mentioned in p. 4, as one of the Delegates to Visitors. If so, it was unheard of that any College should have two Proctors.

^{page 222 note a} This Dispensation was in accordance with precedents, and so betokens a regard for academical order. The necessity for granting degrees by the fiat of Parliament had passed away, and the practice had indeed been but sparingly resorted to. For Wilkins' relations to his College, see below. In spite of the Warden's absence, Wadham was (along with Trinity) the next, after Exeter, Christchurch, and Merton, to be admitted to the privilege of electing its own Fellows. Numerous expulsions had made way for a large body of new Fellows and Scholars.

^{page 222 note b} This must certainly not be taken as any delinquency on the part of Dr. Mansell. Not only, as is observed in his “Life,” p. 16Google Scholar, did he “apply himself,” after his ejection in May, 1648, “to state all accounts between himself and the College,” but, even when “reformed,” his College valued him so highly that in 1651 he was invited to occupy a room within its walls. See, further, note below.

^{page 223 note a} This is an important Order of the Visitors, since it proves their desire to govern the University and Colleges according to their ancient Statutes. The “special cases” to the contrary were to be wholly exceptional, and there must be “evident reason to be approved by the Visitors.” Five months later the need of a further organization for the purposes of the Visitation seems to have impressed itself upon the minds of tho Visitors; and indeed, as early as April 5, they had determined to make special inquiries. See Introduction.

^{page 224 note 4} These letters are not entered in the Register.

^{page 224 note b} Conant, when, shortly after this Order was issued, he became rector, “found the College oppressed with great debts, though honourably contracted in good measure by assisting the King in the late troublesome times.” (Life, p. 11.) No doubt, the temporary suppression of Fellowships was the best way of dealing with the case.

^{page 225 note a} Perhaps the Professors were not considered as useful as the Register. The University could do without the one, and not without the other. A whole year had elapsed since the Visitation commenced in earnest; and such men as Wallis and Seth Ward were at hand. They were soon afterwards appointed. No doubt it was found more difficult to eject Graves and Turner than French; and yet they were far more decided Royalists.

^{page 226 note a} Meaning “appointed.”

^{page 226 note b} Lord Say's position as quasi-Visitor of New College is explained in the note to p. 217.

^{page 227 note a} Zanchy, or Zankey, or Sankey, was a personage very characteristic of the times. Originally a Cambridge man, and now a colonel in the Parliamentary army and friend of Cromwell's, he appears at the head of the list of Fellows of All Souls, placed there by the Visitors in July 1648. Whether he had been there too short a time to acquire the full confidence of the Visitors, or whether his merits became more conspicuous when the King was dead, and Cromwell virtually at the head of affairs, it is curious that on Jan 24, 164, All Souls, whose turn it was, should not be allowed a Proctor, or did not present one; and yet that Zanchy should be made by the Visitors Subwarden of the College in March, 1649, and Proctor in April; he having been appointed by the Proctors one of the Delegates in November, 1648. (Reg. Conv. T.p.23.) As Subwarden he received Cromwell at All Souls in May 1649, and as Proctor presented him for his degree, brevi sed accurata oratione ……corpore officiose prostrato. (Ib. p. 45.) But the change from camp to College was perhaps too violent. His Fellowship is declared “void” in 1653, and Oxford hears no more of the Colonel-Proctor. He had, in fact, scarcely resided at all, and had long ago gone off to Ireland, where he played a considerable part. Notices of him will be found in Cromwell's Letters, Whitelocke's Memorials, Prendergast's Cromwellian Settlement, and Sir Thomas Larcom's edition of Petty's Down Survey (Irish Archæological Society). Whitelocke frequently mentions him as successful in combats with the Irish, while commanding under Ireton, in 1650 and 1651, large bodies of troops; and he had an independent command in Tipperary. Henry Cromwell, who succeeded Ireton, knighted him; but this does not prevent his joining Lambert against Richard Cromwell, and demanding the recall of the members of the Long Parliament. He assists in putting down the Royalist risings, and is one of the Committee of Safety in 1659. It is then that we find him begging Whitelocke to serve on the Committee with him as a counterpoise to Vane and the extreme Republicans. Soon after, he joins Monk, and declares for a free Parliament. His oratorical powers found wider fields of exercise than the University had afforded. In the Irish Parliament, and afterwards in the English (in 1658), we find him, in the most vehement, racy, and truly Cromwellian style, denouncing his deadly enemy, William Petty, the Oxford Professor, for alleged frauds and misdemeanours in carrying out his great, original Survey of Ireland. But Petty went his own way. They had measured one another before. He had in fact prevented Sir Hierom Zanchy from exchanging a tract of land which had fallen to him by lot, for some better land which he proposed to seize in true military fashion; and the heinousness of the offence was increased by the circumstance that Zanchy was concerned throughout the Cromwellian Settlement as the agent for allotting the lands to the army. Petty successfully defied any one to prove the charges made against him. The Restoration separated the combatants. Zanchy died in obscurity in Ireland. From Sir William Petty, knighted in 1661, the great house of Lansdowne traces its descent.

^{page 228 note a} Christchurch takes rank after Exeter, as the second to obtain independent action.

^{page 228 note b} See note p. 222.

^{page 229 note a} See p. 231. The Order of April 26th is almost identical with this of April 10th.

^{page 230 note a} “This Order,” says Wood, “was put in execution the middle of May following, making many more places Void.” (Annals.)

^{page 231 note a} It became necessary to obtain this power as a matter of course. St. Mary Winton and New Colleges were too closely united by their common Founder to be treated separately.

^{page 234 note a} Probably a relative of Thomas Ashhnrst. See note to p. 238 and p. 247.

^{page 235 note a} Perhaps the vigour of this Order may be traced to the visit of the “Generals,” which had just taken place. It was certainly time that whatever had to be done for the “reform” of the University should be completed. There is a good account of this visit in Wood's Annals, chiefly taken from the Register of Convocation T. Its effects are noticed in the Introduction.

^{page 235 note b} Of the Assembly of Divines.

^{page 236 note a} or “Whear,” son of Mr. Degory Wbear, the first Camden Professor of Ancient History, chosen by Camden himself, and who had educated this son with a view to his filling his own place; but Du Moulin was appointed on the expulsion of Waring. Mr. D. Whear had also been a very successful Principal of Gloucester Hall, afterwards Worcester College. (Annals.)

^{page 237 note a} This is the only entry of examinations held by the Board constituted by the Order of July 5,1648. The rest were no doubt registered in some separate book.

^{page 238 note a} Mr. Gunsley's bequest was for four scholars of his name and kin, failing which, to be elected from the schools of Rochester, Maidstone, &c. Thomas Ashurst, the father of Thomas and William Ashurst, is no doubt the member of Parliament, and one of the Committee for the reform of the University. He was the son of Alderman Henry Ashhurst, of London, a member of the family of the Ashhursts of Ashhurst, in Lancashire, and now of Waterstock, Oxon. See Bliss's edition of the “Life of Wood” (Ecclesiastical History Society, 1848), and p. 247.

^{page 240 note a} Edwards (St. John's) was superseded in his office this year by Joshua Cross, of Magdalen.

^{page 241 note a} These are two of the appointments which do most credit to the Parliamentary Visitation. They were original members of the Royal Society. Millington became Sedleian Professor of Natural Philosophy; after the Restoration a knight; eventually physician to William III. Pett belonged to an eminent family of hereditary shipbuilders at Deptford, and was Commissioner for the Navy under the Commonwealth; but, a Royalist before the Restoration, was continued in his office, where we find most frequent mention of him by Evelyn and Pepys. Sir William Pett's great abilities, and unfortunate fate as scapegoat for greater offenders, when the Dutch rode triumphant in the Thames, are matter of history.

^{page 242 note a} See pp. 247, 248.

^{page 242 note b} John Conant.

^{page 243 note a} The Order referred to (p. 202) had, not unnaturally, been interpreted to mean more than was intended. The retention of so many Non-submitters in the places not excepted in that Order was evidently not originally contemplated, and much injustice must have been done in expelling some, and retaining others; but when the reins were firmly in hand, and the governing bodies could be more or less relied upon, Non-submitters were allowed to keep their places, but not their votes or positions as teachers or governors. They were not to be turned out, but to remain, if they pleased, subordinate to the Submitters.

^{page 244 note a} To judge by the numerous Orders which follow relative to Mr. Lane's admission to a Corpus Fellowship, and other Orders, the College seems to have retained a good deal of independence in spite of its “reformation.” It had been one of the strongest Royalist Colleges of all.

^{page 244 note b} The Warden of All Souls, perhaps as Cromwell's friend, and a member of Parliament, is treated very differently from the President of Corpus. See Orders before and after this.

^{page 244 note c} Mr. Allanson was probably the person presented to the Visitors as proctor for this year, along with Bew (or Beaw), and rejected by them. Perhaps he had not been thought wholly above suspicion, in spite of the acquittal he now receives.

^{page 245 note a} He was knighted after the Restoration. Sir Thomas Clayton succeeded his father, Thomas Clayton, Master of Pembroke and Regius Professor of Medicine, in the latter capacity, which office he resigned in 1650. He succeeded in the Wardenship of Merton Dr. Reynolds, who had been elected in 1660, and resigned in 1661, on being preferred to the Bishopric of Norwich.

^{page 246 note a} Merton, New, All Souls, Magdalen, Corpus, and Christchurch are omitted, as the Headships were sufficiently well endowed. See p. 252.

^{page 247 note a} All these had been placed by the Visitors in Fellowships on Sept. 21st and Oct. 26th, 1648. See p. 172.

^{page 247 note b} See note to p. 238.

^{page 247 note c} This and other passages show that the benefit of the Articles of Surrender was confined to those present at the Surrender.

^{page 247 note d} Physician to King James I. and President of the College of Physicians. He had been one of Laud's chief friends. If the Chapel services were to be suppressed, the diversion of the bequest to the Headship, which was a very poor one, and to the maintenance of poor scholars, could hardly be complained of. The President, Cheynell, was to give College lectures in return for his salary. It was in this year that he wrote against the Socinians his vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity.

^{page 250 note a} For some remarks on this subject see Introdnction. It is strange that the two Orders should bear the same date.

^{page 251 note a} The value of the Headships given in the Tanner MSS. vol. 338, p. 237, confirms the Return made by the Colleges on this occasion, on the point of the difference between the six excepted Colleges and the remainder. The income of the latter Headships had risen considerably by the end of the century (when the Table appears to have been made), with the exception of those of Lincoln and Wadham, the income of which had fallen, and of Queen's, which stands at the same figure. The Parsonage attached to the Headship of Trinity is Garsington. For the Halls, see below.

^{page 253 note a} The discoverer of the circulation of the blood. He was put into the Wardenship of Merton by the influence of Charles I. and retained it for a year.

^{page 253 note b} Mr. Greaves' offences, supposing them to be proved, must have appeared heinous enough, especially his dallying with the Queen's confessors; but his abstraction of the College money might be placed in a very different light: (see W. of All Souls, chap. x). The receipts of Dr. Chaworth, Charles's agent in these matters, are still to be found in most College archives. They Were retained under a hope, never realized, that they might avail to redeem the pledge under which the money and plate were borrowed. The young King enjoyed his own again; not so the Colleges.

^{page 255 note a} The anxiety expressed by the Visitors that this breach of Statutes should be strictly exceptional, is worthy of notice.

^{page 257 note a} The direct interference of the Visitors with everything concerning Merton (see also below), the Warden himself signing as one of them, requires explanation, when it is remembered that no College except Lincoln had been more distinctly Parliamentarian, and that along with Exeter, Christchurch, Trinity, and Wadham, it had already been allowed to act independently. Perhaps the Warden, who was an old man, had no longer much influence in the College, which, as we have seen, still retained some strong Royalists among its members. Not long after this we find him at issue with his colleagues. Perhaps his estrangement from them was not unconnected with Collegiate sentiments which had hitherto been suppressed.

^{page 259 note a} Wood remarks of this Order that it was given because “from the time of the Visitation to this all things were in a confusion, and every one did what he thought fit.” But it should be observed that it is, substantially, only a repetition of the Order issued five months previously (March 8, 164), and which we have no reason to think was disobeyed to such an extent as Wood suggests. It is somewhat fuller than the earlier Order, and contains a reference to a contemplated revision of the Statutes of all Colleges, in place of the former vague notice that cases might occur where the Visitors might think seme change desirable. It must have been painful to such older members of Colleges as remained to be informed that their Statutes contained anything “contrary to the law of God,” whatever might be the case as to the new-made “laws of the land.”

^{page 260 note a} The first mention of the new Rector of Exeter.

^{page 261 note a} See p. 264.

^{page 261 note b} A preparation for the system, which did not become at all general till 1653, of election by Colleges amongst persons previously examined on certain points by Delegates appointed by the Visitors.

^{page 262 note a} “They, according to the manner, with a Tertiavit, drank the King's health standing bare.” (Annals.) The severest measures might have been justified at this period, for there were already elements enough of disturbance, the peace of the University having been in this month seriously endangered by a mutiny amongst the garrison, which Lambert and Ingoldsby were publicly thanked by the University for quelling. They were voted a present of gloves, and “a civil visit of thankfulness.” On Sept. 11, a committee of the University had been appointed to confer with the city as to the expediency of dismantling the place and getting rid of the garrison.—Reg. Conv. T.

^{page 262 note b} A strong sign of the resumption of academical order. Wood says, “It was not done to the purpose till 1650,” in fact, not till Greenwood became Vice-Chancellor.

^{page 263 note a} This Order refers to the preceding Order of the London Committee of Aug. 30th. See p. 261.

^{page 263 note b} This would be interesting if it could be recovered.

^{page 263 note c} Or death vacancy.

^{page 264 note a} By whom had this “Model” been sent to the London Committee for their consideration, previously to August 30? Was it by Fairfax and Cromwell? For some remarks on it, see Introduction. On Sept. 27, the University, upon the Order of the London Committee, ordered its delegates to report on the University Statutes, and the Heads of Colleges on theirs.—Reg. Conv. T.

^{page 266 note a} This abuse was always cropping up even in ordinary times, as the Injunctions and Visitations of Colleges show. When the hour of dinner gradually grew later and later, that one meal only instead of two had to be taken in Hall. No common meals beyond dinner and supper (somewhat corresponding to our lunch and dinner), were provided for by Statutes or custom; breakfast, until modern times, being taken very early, and scarcely reckoned a meal at all.

^{page 266 note b} This is the second Order by Visitors on the subject of speaking Latin or Greek.

^{page 266 note c} These revenues had already been set apart in March for the benefit of the Registrar. His payment was, soon after this, provided for by Convocation out of the fees of “Proceeders” and fees for Dispensations and “Commutations of Exercises.” (Reg. Conv. T. p. 82.)

^{page 267 note a} The Sedleian Professor of Geometry.

^{page 268 note a} See p. 72.

^{page 270 note a} This is the last registered record of Reynolds as acting with the rest of the Visitors.

^{page 271 note a} Sir Simon Bennett, Bart, was one of the chief benefactors of University College. His bequest dated from 1631.

^{page 272 note a} The claims of the Irish had been specially recognised in the Injunctions of Edward VI.'s Commissioners in 1549. See W. of All Souls, p. 72.

^{page 274 note a} The “Engagement” was so distasteful to the University generally that a serious attempt was made to evade the Order by means of a Petition from Convocation to the effect that it might be sufficient to “declare and promise that they will live quietly and peaceably in their places and callings under the present Government; and as they have done hitherto, so still shall submit thereunto in all lawfnll thinges.” Reg. Conv. T. Dec. 18, 1649. This failed. “Soon after the Visitors, patched up with Independents, went from College to College (having before cited the members to appear), and in the Common Hall of each place gave the said Engagement to their respective members, especially such that were Foundation men, and all (as I think) to whom it was offered took it. Dr. Reynolds, Dean, and Dr. Mills, and Dr. Pocock, Canons of Christchurch, refusing it, were ejected in the year 1651. (Annals.) Conant on the other hand took it under a protest which evacuated it of all meaning (Introduction); and Sanderson had written, with his accustomed skill in casuistry, to show how it might be taken with a safe conscience. Reynolds, who seems to have been a man of a gentle nature, was probably glad to escape from an office which had obliged him to bear a part in much violence. The “execution” of his Sovereign had taken place not many months before, and he might be glad to retire in favour of Greenwood, who was well fitted for the post of Vice-Chancellor. The Independents, however, who now began to take the lead, were by no means willing to let Reynolds keep his Deanery; and he had to give way till his party once more got the upper hand, a little before the Restoration.

^{page 276 note a} Dr, Iänson, afterwards created a Baronet, was the Fellow of All Souls who guarded the College money on its way to Nottingham for the King in 1642.

^{page 278 note a} Between the dates of these two Orders, viz. on Jan. 23, 1649–50, Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, the Chancellor, died. The office remained vacant for nearly a year, till Cromwell was elected Chancellor on Jan. 1, 1650–1.

^{page 280 note a} This Order is almost identical with that of Feb. 5.

^{page 284 note a} Many Colleges had an original provision in their Statutes, “quod omnia ministeria fiant per masculos,” with an exception for the laundress.

^{page 285 note b} This Order shows that suppers in taverns, alehouses, or victualling houses, were at this period, in defiance of old University Statutes, the actual rule and practice of the whole University. This may also be gathered from Wood's remark upon the Order:—“Whereupon in most or all Colleges supper was allowed on those nights in their respective refectories.” Even the Visitors recognise the tavern suppers on other nights.

The history of these taverns, &c, is interesting, and may perhaps some day be found a subject not too humble for a special investigation. Their great number in Oxford at the present time, which is out of proportion to the population, is itself an indication of an ancient history. It is well known that some of them occupy the sites, perhaps even portions of the buildings, of those medieval Halls which, to the number of some three hundred, housed, before the institution of Colleges, the members of the University. Wood's MSS. furnish the names of two hundred, and he believed there had been one hundred more. The process seems to have been this: The Colleges, in the 14th and 15th centuries, gradually absorbed most of the old Halls, and in so doing largely reformed the habits of students; but nevertheless the practice soon began to spring up of each of them having a particular tavern or taverns to which the members of the Colleges were used to resort. As the severity of College discipline relaxed, the practice grew to be systematic. Thus those Halls which were not absorbed into Colleges, and yet ceased to house undergraduates, found a use which perpetuated their existence in another way; while their antiquity and respectable origin had no doubt a tendency to prevent their extinction. At the period of the Commonwealth there were but seven which, retaining their original function, had survived the sure and steady progress of the Colleges in occupying the educational ground; Broadgates Hall, the origin of which Wood traced to Saxon times, having been turned into Pembroke College not long previously. Of these seven, Gloucester Hall, founded in 1283, became Worcester College in 1714; Hart Hall, of about the same date, we have observed in its various transformations in connection with Magdalen Hall (see note to p. 117); the remaining five may be noticed here, since the extinction of some of them is proceeding under the hands of the Royal Commissioners while these sheets are passing through the press. St. Edmund Hall, which is coeval with Hart and Gloucester, is about to be more intimately connected with Queen's College than before, though not to be merged in it; St. Alban Hall, of the 14th century, is to be merged in Merton; St. Mary Hall and New Inn Hall, of about the same date, in Oriel and Balliol Colleges, respectively. The foundation of Keble College and the Unattached system are thought to have at last rendered these institutions, nearly the most ancient in Oxford, obsolete. But they can never be forgotten; for they have done much good service; and it has already appeared in these pages that they have played an important part in Oxford history.

The taverns, some of which were their lowlier brethren, have, to do them justice, shown more vitality: whether the fittest or not, they survive. Wood speaks of the excessive number of alehouses in the reign of James I.; Bancroft, Abbot, and Laud did their utmost to repress the evil. Abbot, in 1616, required the Warden of All Souls to punish such of his Society as, “neglecting their studies, do spend their time abroad in taverns and alehouses to the deformation of scholars and scandal of your house” (W. of All Souls, 126). Laud justly prided himself on having reduced the number from 300 to 100. (Works: Lib. of Anglo-Catholic Theology, v. part i. p. 247.) The Civil War had undone many of the reforms which Laud had effected; but the efforts of the Parliamentary Visitors to establish a better state of things were seconded by an improvement which took place at this very time, and which was not unconnected with their supremacy. Like the Temperance movement of our own day, there was a successful attempt to introduce coffee in the place of beer. Wood constantly mentions the coffee-houses which, during the interregnum, were the places of meeting for scientific and musical men. The debased disputations, after the fashion of the Schools, over pots of beer, were succeeded by the enlightened discussions, which heralded and formed the Royal Society, over “dishes” of coffee, and by the concerts on stringed instruments which engaged the talents of the masters of music, who, on their expulsion from cathedrals and churches, flocked to Oxford. In London we know how these coffee-houses became classical.

After the Restoration ale and beer drove out the coffee, and once more asserted their supremacy. At least we hear nothing of the latter; while Dr. Bathurst, writing in 1674, says:—“Our alehouses, by reason of the town's immoderate licensing, and the plausible plea of improving His Majesty's Excise, are thriven into several hundreds.” (Warton's Life of Bathurst, p. 104.) No one could speak with more authority on this point, as he had been one of the enlightened scientific inquirers of the earlier period of his residence, and did his best for his College and University during the later. The abuses of which he speaks have operated more or less ever since; but in justice to modern Oxford it is but fair to mention that the proportion of drunken offences is considerably less than might be expected from the number of public-houses. The Temperance reform is already making itself felt in many ways.

^{page 287 note a} This appointment, like those of last year, was abnormal. New College obtained the turn of which it had been then deprived: Stephens of St. Alban Hall, and afterwards Principal of Hart Hall, having been imported into the College by the Visitors; but Queen's seems to have had no one who could be trusted for the office of Proctor. Thankful, or Gracious, Owen, was one of the original Delegates, and more in the confidence of the Visitors than even Cheynell, whom, shortly after his appointment as Proctor, he superseded in the Presidentship of St. John's. He was afterwards a Visitor, and must be carefully distinguished from the more celebrated Dr. John Owen, soon to be Dean of Christchurch and Vice-Chaneellor. His name betrays his Puritan birth, but Accepted Prewen was one of the ecclesiastical chiefs of the High Church and Cavalier party. Expelled at the Restoration, Thankful Owen died a Congregational Minister in 1681.

^{page 287 note b} This interference with All Souls, so far as to appoint all the officers of the College, only a year and a half after the great majority of the Fellows had been superseded by persons whom the Visitors had appointed, together with the refusal of the previous year to allow it to have a Proctor till Zanchy could be placed in that office, show that the old elements still retained, viz., the “disaffected seniors” were very powerful. A few months later (Sept. 1650) Millington, Pett, and others—another batch of appointments—find themselves kept out of their rights; and a little later still (Jan. 17, 165) the London Committee having required the Visitors to make a special visitation of the College, the latter report that they “find it is much out of order, both as to the worship of God in the Chapel and scholastical exercises of the House.” Johnson, their own appointed Sub-Warden, and others, had been guilty of “negligence and contempt.” When we consider that the Warden was non-resident; that Zanchy, on whom the Visitors relied, had stayed but a short time, having gone to the wars in Ireland; and that there were no Undergraduates to employ the resident Fellows in teaching, it is not to be wondered at that the College never recovered its order, nor that it adopted the abuse of Corrupt Resignations as readily as it had ever done in the preceding times.

^{page 289 note a} It would thus appear that the College was so much in debt, and its affairs so unsettled, that the Master and Fellows had been non-resident. It was the only case of the sort.

^{page 290 note a} This and other Orders of about the same date bear evidence of the dissatisfaction of the London Committee with the proceedings of the Visitors, and of the Visitors not being much pleased at their interference. By the end of the year they are in open conflict. The victorious Independents would no longer brook Presbyterian Government in Oxford or elsewhere.

^{page 291 note a} Though New College examined its own men for Degrees down to quite a recent date, the University alone conferred them. This Order can only mean a dispensation from some of the four terms which ought by Statute to intervene between the B.A. and M.A. degree.

^{page 291 note b} Kelsey and Appletree, who here sign for the first time, were not in the original Commission. Kelsey, as chief military officer resident, and now Governor of Oxford, was a person naturally to be appointed in the early days of the Visitation. He was a man of low origin and social position.

^{page 291 note c} This is a very direct interference with the Visitors; but apparently not before it was wanted. Wood asserts that Degrees had been constantly given irregularly, and continued to be so under subsequent Visitors. “Some preachers in the army who had scarce smelt an academy” were created Masters of Arts by the London Committee This may be an exaggeration. There is at any rate no trace of the abuse in the Register after this date. Necessity may have fairly covered some irregularities at first.

^{page 293 note a} John Harmer, Demy of Magdalen, was however appointed. Wood calls him “a most excellent philologist,” but “of a credulous humour,” an amusing instance of which is given by Wood in his “Life.” (Ath. Ox. I. xxxviii.)

^{page 294 note a} Hair-powder had been in fashion for half a century before this order. For Injunctions against unscholarlike dress, see W. of All Souls, 62,109,148. No doubt the war had aggravated the general irregularities of attire, and party distinctions were only too well symbolized in the outward appearance of students. Wood indignantly accuses the new-comers of being the worst offenders, and declares that not only had the University cap and hood become for the time almost obsolete, but that the Cambridge intruders had actually had the audacity to introduce a new cut of the academical gown. These dangerous innovations were, however, he was happy to think, short-lived, the Restoration having set all such matters right again. The ignominious failure of the attempt to make a slight change in the gown of undergraduates, some twenty years ago, afforded a fresh proof that it is easier to change more sacred things at Oxford than the costume which it has inherited from the Middle Ages.

^{page 295 note a} Henry Coventry, son of the Lord Keeper, and afterwards Secretary of State to Charles II. See W. of All Souls, 294 and 390. There was as little doubt, under the circumstances of the war and Visitation, that he had received but small profits from his Fellowship, as that he was a delinquent, and an absentee for nine years. The strange thing is that the case should only now have been dealt with. Coventry came to All Souls from Queen's, where he had been a pupil of Barlow's. Through him Barlow became Bishop of Lincoln.

^{page 299 note a} “This Order of the Visitors was published in Convocation and approved of by their unanimous consent.” (Reg. Conv. T. July 24, 1650.)

^{page 299 note b} Cawley became a Fellow of All Souls in 1651.

^{page 301 note a} A very lame answer. The Visitors are caught tripping, for they do not explain the delay of nearly two years. If Markham's name does not appear (as the Visitors are right in saying) in the list sent to them by the Committee on May 15, 1648, that might excuse them for not expelling him then;—but why expel him so long afterwards?

See below, where the questions connected with Jesus College and its Principal are discussed.

The Visitors' method of dealing with Mr. Parsons, who had been appointed a Fellow by them, did not answer. His way of spending his leave of absence in London was soon reported to them as “loose, disorderly, and scandalous;” on which he is ordered to return to College. Still his absence is so much desired there, that the ministrations he had performed at Twyford Church for a quarter of a year are extended for half a year longer. He might do, it seems, for a country living.

^{page 305 note a} Mr. Severne's case is similar to those of Markham and Busby, all of Christchurch, and, with those cases and others, forms part of the complaint made by the Visitors to the London Committee (see below). But in the case of Severne the Visitors give as a reason for suddenly obeying orders which they had so long supposed they were not to obey, that his behaviour was “both malignant and scandalous.” Yet in spite of this, on his “bare appeal,” the Committee had restored him. It was clear that an explosion must soon follow such a quarrel, as it did in a very few months.

^{page 305 note b} By Order of the London Committee. As the quarrel proceeds, it is evident that the Visitors have more and more right to complain, and that the London Committee have no justification for their interference, which in this case is mischievous and scandalous. The Visitors act with spirit; refuse to admit these two men; “suspend their admission,” when the Order is repeated; and bring their case as an unanswerable charge against the Committee when the actual rupture takes place.

These men were from Cambridge, as also two others of the new Fellows of Lincoln, Adlard and Hitchcock, probably persons whose absence from that University was desirable. Wood agrees with the Visitors that these appointments had been most improper in every sense, and that the four men, “by a faction they bred, and with an old and false Rector, fostered, did almost subvert that House:” (Annals.)

^{page 306 note a} Five was the number originally appointed to be a quorum in May, 1647, so that the Committee were perfectly right in insisting on that number of signatures. It is not surprising that some should absent themselves under the pressure of the differences now developing with the Committee; and it is not improbable that where so many of the Visitors' Orders are given without signatures, the quorum had not been always present, and thus that some of their acts had been illegal. The Orders which follow are much more frequently signed after this, or the presence of the quorum notified.

^{page 307 note a} Dr. Rogers did the duty of Vice-Chancellor during the interval between Dr. Reynolds' and Dr. Greenwood's tenure of the office, the latter of which began on Oct. 12, 1650. Upon Dr. Reynolds, as Vice-Chancellor, had been conferred by the Visitors “the power and authority of Chancellor,” on July 24. Perhaps this is why he was so soon superseded by the London Committee; but he was already in disgrace for not having taken the “Engagement.”

^{page 309 note a} These signatures were evidently those attached to the Letter as well as to the Order made at the same time.

^{page 309 note b} Wood gives no account of the prevalence of this gross abuse, the non-residence of Heads of Houses. Palmer's absence from All Souls on Parliamentary duty would appear at one time to have been recognized; but no exception is made in his favour in this Order. If it were not that he was an Independent, it might be thought to have been levelled at him, in some connection, perhaps, with the quarrel going on between the Committee and the Visitors.

^{page 311 note a} Probably the Assessment Committee.

^{page 311 note b} See above. A year and a half had elapsed since the former Orders had been issued, apparently with little effect.

^{page 313 note a} By the ancient Statutes.

^{page 314 note a} That such an Order should be necessary is a burlesque commentary on the state of Lincoln as revealed by the Orders concerning the Cambridge intruders. (See above.) The youths were no longer to have the opportunity of praying publicly against the “dangerous influences” to which they were confessedly exposed by their superiors.

^{page 316 note a} See above; and W. of All-Souls, 203, where however the date is misprinted.

^{page 316 note b} Lockey was a man of mark. He was Bodley's Librarian from 1660 to 1665.

^{page 317 note a} This consideration for a Non-submitter is another of the more agreeable incidents of the Visitation. One cannot help connecting Dean Reynolds with the attempt to retain in his House so many of those who would not submit formally, yet were willing to live quietly. Tbe London Committee were evidently determined to get at every case of the sort, and Reynolds himself soon followed.

^{page 317 note b} This letter must be read along with the curt reply of the London Committee, which follows (p. 323), and the second letter of the Visitors on the same subject. The former seem to rely on the terms of the original Commission of May 1, 1647, which certainly made the Visitors little more than a Court of Inquiry, and left the executive to the Committee of Parliament. The Visitors would have done better to rely only on the supplementary Ordinances of August and September, 1647, which were issued when the powers at first granted appeared to be insufficient, and which threw them back on the general powers of a Visitation, which powers they certainly did not exceed. Still further they were told on Sept. 24 by Parliament:— “If any shall without just cause appeal from you to us when you have passed a definitive sentence upon them, we shall look upon it as a contempt of a very high nature.” (Annals, vol. ii. part ii. 517); and it is surprising that they do not quote these words. The Parliamentary Committee, exercising supreme authority according to the terms of the “Engagement,” came to forget that they had already parted with so much of their power to those who were more capable of exercising it from being on the spot. The Visitors show equal good sense and dignity in declining to be the mere puppets of Parliament. Governor Kelsey had infused a little military spirit into the body. (For the cases mentioned, see Notes on p. 305.)

Thus far the rights on both sides. But the question between the two parties was really one incidental to such a revolution as had taken place:—Was the Government safe unless every member of such an institution as Oxford University was pledged to its present form, viz., the Engagement ? We have seen what differences of opinion existed among the Visitors themselves on this point, and have noticed the petition of (the reformed) Convocation to be absolved from subscribing to it. The quarrel is a deliberate one on the part of those who are determined to search out every case of favour shown to persons of doubtful allegiance. It was time that the two bodies should at least understand one another. The problem was solved by the gradual transformation of the Visitatorial body, the growing return to Academical habits, the order maintained by Greenwood and Owen under Cromwell's authority as Chancellor, and finally the gradual formation by experience of an excellent governor in Conant, Rector of Exeter.

^{page 320 note a} The word “ingenious” had not, in the 17th century, acquired its present sense. It was then synonymous with “ingenuous” or “candid.”

^{page 322 note a} See above. A year and a half had elapsed since the former Orders, in reference to French, had been issued, apparently with little effect.

^{page 322 note b} Wood was a brother of the antiquary, who notices the case before us. (Annals.)

^{page 323 note a} The irritation produced on the Visitors by their unpleasant correspondence with the Committee seems to have expended itself on Merton, which continued to be much “out of order;” but this is a fresh cause of quarrel.

^{page 328 note a} This commences the last phase of Sir Nathaniel Brent's career. He had not signed as Visitor since August, and does not sign again for several months, till Oct. 1, 1651. Probably he had sided with the London Committee in the previous quarrel; and whether Merton deserved the wrath of his colleagues or not, he could go on no longer with them. He soon after had to resign the Wardenship on account of an Order forbidding Pluralities. He died in 1652, aged 79, having seen many violent changes, both in his country and University, and taken a considerable part in them.

^{page 330 note a} Lee was a rigid Nonconformist. He lived on his estate at Bicester after the Restoration, and “sometimes kept Conventicles.” In 1686 he emigrated to New England, but returning in 1691 was taken captive by a French Privateer, and died, says Wood, of a broken heart; but at any rate he was a sufficiently old man.

^{page 330 note b} Referring to the end of the year now just concluded, Wood makes the following remark:—“Independency increasing very much in London it was aimed at by the Grandees there that it should take rooting and increase in the University, and so consequently dilate itself through the nation.” (Annals.) To the six Ministers who had hitherto taken the preaching at St. Mary's were now added several Independent Ministers, “of whom the chief were Mr. Thomas Goodwin, President of Magd. Coll. commonly called Nine-caps, because having a cold head he was forced to wear so many, Mr. Jo. Owen, Mr. Peter French, Mr. Thankful Owen,” &c.

^{page 332 note a} This Order predisposes us to think the charges made against Roberts, the Principal of Jesus, which were dismissed at a later date (especially as he subsequently resigned), had some foundation. It might be expected that this plan of combining College offices and College salaries in the hands of the Head of the House would not be agreeable to the Fellows who had a right to expect them. The quarrel becomes irreconcilable, and takes up many pages of the Register. To do the new comers justice this is the only proof afforded by the Register of the many charges of grasping after money made by Wood and others. The Colleges being mostly in debt, the Heads had often succeded to a damnosa hereditas, and even in this case there was probably some slight excuse to be made for Roberts on that ground.

^{page 332 note b} The London Committee were quite right in requiring a recurrence as soon as possible to a fundamental rule. A College was ever, and is still, a domestic household, whose affairs should be kept to itself, though there may be special exceptions in cases of necessity.

^{page 333 note a} This office is still preserved, though its meaning has passed away with the fine supply of College horses which once filled the stables of All Souls.

^{page 334 note a} An adumbration of the position which was not permitted to married fellows till more than two centuries had passed away.

^{page 335 note a} An instance of the good sense which has distinguished Oxford from times at least as early as when leave of absence was granted to Linacre and his fellows to study in Italy. Sir William Petty was rightly allowed to pursue his great work in Ireland as a Fellow of Brasenose. Such special fitness implies that cases of the sort must be strictly exceptional, and only admissible by the consent of a supreme authority. For Petty see note to p. 227, Warton's Life of Bathurst, p. 160, Ward's Professors of Gresham College, p. 222, and Larcom's Down Survey. He was buried in Romsey Abbey, with the plain epitaph;—“Here layes Sir William Petty.”

^{page 335 note b} Wood reckons up seven of these different courses of Lectures and Sermons, viz., at Magdalen, Corpus, Christchurch, St. Mary Magdalen (church), Allhallows (All-Saints church), and at Dr. Rogers' house in New Inn Lane. He also remarks in this place:—“So great was the care of these persons for the due and orderly keeping of the Lord's Day, that they would suffer no tippling in common houses, idling about the streets, walking in the fields, sports, &c., and such like. For if any person was guilty of any of these matters he was looked upon as a scandalous person and to be avoided” (Annals)—a suggestive instance of the way in which too lax habits had produced a reaction of somewhat too great strictness; just as this again brought about a far worse reaction in the licentious period which followed.

^{page 337 note a} It must be admitted that the usefulness of Dr. Lloyd's vacancy, as a means of composing the quarrel of the governing authorities, seems to have been the main cause of this change in the mode of dealing with him. It was only a few months before that his excuses for non-residence had been, however wrongly, accepted.

^{page 337 note b} The Visitors and their London censors left Oxford alone during the Long Vacation of 1651. On June 13th the Act was held. This was a sign of returning order for “it had not been celebrated for several years.” Greenwood, the successor, in 1650, of Reynold as Vice-Chancellor, is called by Wood elsewhere a “severe and good governor, as well of the University as of his College;” but here he is a “morose and peevish person,” “a severe and choleric governor,” who was forced to “get several guards of musketeers of the garrison to awe them at St. Mary's,” where (before Sheldon built his theatre for the purpose of preventing such unseemly desecration) these annual celebrations were held. No doubt the guards were necessary at the first revival of the institution (which had always been before, and has been since, the occasion of great licence), amidst elements of such serious danger on all sides; and collisions between them and the undergraduates, who tried to get in without “passes,” unavoidable. When Dr. Owen presided at a subsequent Act affairs were more settled, but he had to make a gallant interference in his own person. See Introduction.

During the Long Vacation Oxford was alarmed by the approach of the young King from Scotland. A troop of scholars was raised, and the outworks on the north of the city were hastily destroyed, as also the ancient Castle; while New College was turned into a fortification. The Castle had only just previously been “made impregnable” at a great expense. The picturesque mound in New College gardens seems to be the wreck of the tower at that time hastily thrown up. (Annals.) This was soon at an end; but the effects of the battle of Worcester were, according to Wood, permanently felt not only in the “defacing of all tokens of monarchy in the University and City,” which could hardly be complained of at the hands of the victorious party, but “the defacing also of all monuments of superstition,” in which were included painted glass in Colledge chapels, Those which had survived the zeal of the early Reformers could hardly have been very objectionable. Dr. Bloxam believes the destruction of the Magdalen glass to have taken place at this time. Canon Henry Wilkinson, of Christchurch (Long Harry), distinguished himself by the fury with which he attacked the painted glass which adorned that institution.

Greenwood was nominated Vice-Chancellor for the second time, in October of this year, by Cromwell. His letter is as follows:—

“Reverend Sirs,

“Finding it incumbent on mee to nominate a Vice-Chancellor for the University, it had somewhile since (in due season) been performed, but that many important affairs of the Commonwealth did interpose in my thoughts. I doc now recommend unto you Dr. Daniel Greenwood, Principall of Brazen-nose Colledge (who at present exerciseth that office), of whose ability and zeale for Reformation I have received abundant testimony, to be Vice-Chancellor for the yeare ensuinge, nothing doubting but that hee and you all will soe endeavour the improvement of those publique ends to which you are design'd, that all of us who arc concerned in the welfare of the University may in some measure answer the mind and will of him who hath so gratiously continued (with innumerable other mercyes) such advantages of piety and literature, and withall satisfye the expectation of the Commonwealth.

“Sirs, I am your assured Friend and Chancellour,

“O. Cromwell.” (Reg. Conv. T.)

“Whitehall, Oct. 2.”

^{page 339 note a} From previous entries we may gather that Washington had been the confidential friend and agent of the Visitors in reference to the difficulties of University College. Dr. Hoyle, the Master's, absence is accounted for in the next Order by sickness.

^{page 339 note b} Brent's last signature.

^{page 339 note c} Neither Peter French, Goodwin, nor Marshall were in the original Commission. The latter was the Warden of New Colledge. Goodwin was soon afterwards President of Magdalen, French Prebendary of Christchurch. French and Goodwin represented the Independents. French soon after died, and his widow, Cromwell's sister, married Wilkins, Warden of Wadham, who (as Dr. Symons lately did from Parliament) obtained a Dispensation from Cromwell to break the College Statutes on this head.

^{page 339 note a} See note c on p. 339.

^{page 339 note b} This is Conant's first signature as Visitor, just two years after the last signature of Reynolds, whose daughter he had married in August, 1651. He had acknowledged the Parliamentary Government de facto when he accepted the Headship of his College, and may be believed to have very much taken up Reynolds' position (excepting that he took the Engagement), and to have been his representative on the Visitors' Board, See Introduction.

^{page 342 note a} For this and the following Orders with reference to the delinquent Fellows of Lincoln, see Notes below.

^{page 345 note a} The Visitors rejected these abject apologies on the ground that they were not made till the “sixth day of our sitting upon this business; when the fears of expulsion were upon them:” (see below).

^{page 345 note b} For Hitchcock's outrageous conduct on a later occasion, see Annals (1660).

^{page 346 note a} This must have been the fault of those who filled up so many places, at a time when the College was struggling with heavy debts.

^{page 350 note a} Our sympathies can hardly but be with the Visitors in this matter. The London Committee were acting in their proper function as a Court of Appeal, but they had originally placed those objectionable men in the College against the sustained remonstrances of the Visitors. The latter who had to submit are perhaps in the most dignified position: but it might hare been better for their reputation to have carried the affair through.

^{page 353 note a} This is the first appearance as Visitor of John Owen, who had now succeeded Reynolds as Dean of Christchurch, and for some years is the leading figure in the University. (See Introduction.) On Sept. 9th, 1652, he was nominated by Cromwell to be Vice-Chancellor, and on Oct. 16th was placed at the head of a Commission which was to execute the office of Chancellor, “forasmuch as the present weighty affairs of the Commonwealth doe call for and engage mee to reside and give my personall attendance in so neare London.” The other four members of the Commission, of which three were to be a quorum, were Wilkins, Warden of Wadham; Goodwin, President of Magdalen; Goddard, Warden of Merton; and Peter French, Prebendary of Christchurch. At the same time the Chancellor's power of determining College differences was delegated by Cromwell to the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses for six months. Cromwell's letter nominating Owen is as follows:—

“Gentlemen,

“I understand that the time for nominating a Vice-Chancellor for the next year is now approaching, and, considering how great need there is of continuing the government of the University in an able and faithful hand, I doe hereby nominate and appoint John Owen, Deane of Christchurch, to the place of Vice-Chancellor to you for the yeare following, not being unmindfull of the integrity, care, and vigilancy of Dr. Greenwood, who hath these two last yeares managed the same; being ready to serve you in all things which may promote the good of the University of Oxford.

I rest your loving Friend,

“O. Cromwell.”

“Whitehall, Sept. 9, 1652.”

The admiration of the University Registrar for Owen's speech on taking up his office, exceeds all bounds: “Sed ut industrius pictor velo obumbrat guod penieillo exprimi posse desperat, sic hujus orationis eximiœ vires, omnibus epithetis, omni encomio sublimiores religioso silentio venerandœ sunt.” (Reg. Conv. T.)