| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Book of Trinity College Dublin 1591-1891
Author: Trinity College (Dublin, Ireland)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Book of Trinity College Dublin 1591-1891" ***
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of each chapter. Four digit items such as [1466] are
not footnote anchors but refer to a year.
A superscript is denoted by ^x or ^{xx}, for example L^d or Hon^{ble}.
Gothic font is indicated by double plus signs, ++in gothic font++.
Macrons over e and u are displayed correctly as ē and ū. Some latin
abbreviations are shown in the original text with an overline, for
example Hiberniæ when abbreviated is shown as Hibniæ with ibni
overlined. This overline is indicated in the etext using [= ] giving
H[=ibni]æ.
Basic fractions are displayed as ½ ¼ ¾; there are no other fractions
in this book.
Date ranges are displayed using - for example 1621-8, the same as the
original text.
Split-year dates are displayed with a / divider, for example 1600/1;
the original text shows 160 with a fraction-like ‘0 over 1’ in a
smaller font. The dual dates indicate the Julian (1600) and the
Gregorian (1601) year designation for dates between January 1st and
March 25th. Prior to 1752 dates in documents in British dominions
used the Julian calendar, in which the new year did not begin until
March 25th.
Some other minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
[Illustration: (Seal of the College)]
TERCENTENARY CELEBRATION
JULY, 1892
PRESENTED
BY THE
PROVOST AND SENIOR FELLOWS
OF
TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN
[Illustration: POSVI DEVM ADIVTOREM MEVM
_Mortua anno
MIserICorDIæ._
HONI SOIT QVI MAL Y PENSE
SEMPER EADEM
_Nata Gronewiciæ
anno Christi
MDXXXIII.
6.Jd.Sept._
ELISABET D.G. ANGLIAE, FRANCIAE, HIBERNIAE, ET VERGINIAE REGINA,
FIDEI CHRISTIANAE PROPVGNATRIX ACERRIMA. NVNC IN [=DNO] REQVIESCENS.
_Virginis os habitumque geris, diuina virago,
Sed supra sexum dotes animumque virilem;
Quod sæpe altarum docuit rerum exitus ingens:
Vnde tibi et Regni populi debere fatentur,
Christiadumque cohors, odijs rumpantur vt hostes,
Quorum Diua tua rabies nil morte lucrata est._
_Vasta Semiramiden Babylon super æthera tollat,
Efferat et Didona suam Sidonia tellus,
Gens Esthren Iudæa, Camillam Volsca propago,
Aut Constantini matrem Byzantion ingens,
Atqúe alias aliæ gentes: tete Anglia fortis
Vt quondam fructa est, sic nunc clarescat alumna._
_Isaac Oliuier
effigiabat._
_Crispin van de Passe
incidebat._
_procurante Joanne
Waldnelio._
_P.B.M.Q. ludeb._
]
THE BOOK
OF
TRINITY COLLEGE
DUBLIN
1591 [Illustration: (original Seal of the College)] 1891
BELFAST
MARCUS WARD & CO., LIMITED, ROYAL ULSTER WORKS
LONDON AND NEW YORK
DUBLIN: HODGES, FIGGIS & CO., LIMITED
1892
[Illustration: (Publisher colophon)]
The Committee appointed by the Provost and Senior Fellows of
Trinity College, Dublin, to make arrangements for the celebration
of the Tercentenary of the Foundation of the University of Dublin
and of Trinity College, to be held in July, 1892, requested the
following to act as a Sub-Committee to superintend the bringing out
of a volume in which there should be a record of the chief events
of the College for the last three centuries, a description of its
buildings, &c.:--
Rev. JOHN W. STUBBS, D.D.
Rev. THOMAS K. ABBOTT, B.D., Litt.D., Librarian.
Rev. JOHN P. MAHAFFY, D.D., Mus. Doc.
EDWARD DOWDEN, LL.D., Litt.D.
ULICK RALPH BURKE, M.A.
WILLIAM MACNEILE DIXON, LL.B., and
E. PERCEVAL WRIGHT, M.A., M.D.;
the last named to be the Convener.
Through illness, Professor E. Dowden was unable to take any
active part in the preparation of this volume, the publication of
which was undertaken by the firm of Messrs. Marcus Ward & Co.,
Limited, of Belfast. The time at the disposal of the writers of the
following chapters was extremely short, and they tender an apology
for the want of completeness, which, on an exact scrutiny of their
work, will, they fear, be only too conspicuous; but it is hoped
that the volume may be acceptable as a sketch towards a History of
the College.
The name of the writer of each chapter is given in the Table
of Contents, and each author is to be regarded as accountable
only for his own share of the work. The Committee’s grateful
thanks are due to Mr. Louis Fagan, of the Department of Prints
and Drawings, British Museum, for the help he has given them in
having reproductions made from rare engravings of some of the
distinguished Graduates of the University.
[Illustration: (Decorative section heading)]
CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAPTER I.--FROM THE FOUNDATION TO THE CAROLINE CHARTER, by the
Rev. J. P. Mahaffy, D.D., 1
” II.--FROM THE CAROLINE REFORM TO THE SETTLEMENT OF
WILLIAM III., by the Rev. J. P. Mahaffy, D.D., 29
” III.--THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY UP TO 1758, by the Rev.
J. P. Mahaffy, D.D., 47
” IV.--FROM 1758 TO THE CLOSE OF THE CENTURY, by the Rev.
J. P. Mahaffy, D.D., 73
” V.--DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, by the Rev.
J. W. Stubbs, D.D., 91
” VI.--THE OBSERVATORY, DUNSINK, by Sir Robert Ball, LL.D.,
Astronomer-Royal, 131
” VII.--THE LIBRARY, by the Rev. T. K. Abbott, B.D.,
Litt.D., Librarian, 147
” VIII.--THE EARLY BUILDINGS, by Ulick R. Burke, M.A., 183
” IX.--DISTINGUISHED GRADUATES, by William MacNeile
Dixon, LL.B., 235
” X.--THE COLLEGE PLATE, by the Rev. J. P. Mahaffy, D.D., 267
” XI.--THE BOTANICAL GARDENS AND HERBARIUM, by E. Perceval
Wright, M.A., M.D., 275
” XII.--THE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE OFFICERS, 1892, 285
TERCENTENARY ODE, 291
[Illustration: (Decorative section ending)]
[Illustration: (Decorative section heading)]
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PAGE
PORTRAIT OF QUEEN ELIZABETH, _Frontispiece._
THE OLDEST MAP OF THE COLLEGE, 7
FAC-SIMILE OF PROVOST ASHE’S PRAYER, 10
THE EARLIEST EXTANT COLLEGE SEAL, 11
THE SOUTH BACK OF THE ELIZABETHAN COLLEGE, 25
FAC-SIMILE OF TITLE-PAGE, ARCHBISHOP MARSH’S “LOGIC,” 37
CHAPEL PLATE (DATED 1632 AND 1638), 44
TITLE-PAGE OF THE CENTENARY SERMON, JANUARY 9, 1693/4, 52
THE OLD CLOCK TOWER, 62
CANDELABRUM, EXAMINATION HALL, 130
DUNSINK OBSERVATORY, 133
SOUTH EQUATORIAL, DUNSINK, 142
MERIDIAN ROOM, DUNSINK, 144
OLD PRINT OF LIBRARY, 1753, 152
INTERIOR OF LIBRARY, 1858, 154
A PAGE FROM THE “BOOK OF KELLS,” 161
SATCHEL OF THE “BOOK OF ARMAGH,” 164
SHRINE OF THE “BOOK OF DIMMA,” 165
BOOK RECESSES IN LIBRARY, 176
INNER STAIRCASE IN LIBRARY, 177
INTERIOR OF LIBRARY, 1860, 178
THE LIBRARY, 1891, 179
LIBRARY STAIRCASE AND ENTRANCE TO READING ROOM, 180
ROYAL ARMS NOW PLACED IN LIBRARY, 181
FRONT OF TRINITY COLLEGE, 1728, 183
GROUND PLAN OF TRINITY COLLEGE, FROM ROCQUE’S MAP OF
DUBLIN, 1750, 187
_Ampelopsis veitchii_, 190
TRINITY COLLEGE--WEST FRONT, 191
THE PROVOST’S HOUSE, FROM GRAFTON STREET, 195
DRAWING ROOM, PROVOST’S HOUSE, 197
TOP OF STAIRCASE, REGENT’S HALL, 200
PARLIAMENT AND LIBRARY SQUARES, 201
LIBRARY SQUARE, 202
THE CHAPEL, 204
BALDWIN’S MONUMENT, 211
THE BELL TOWER, FROM THE PROVOST’S GARDEN, 215
THE DINING HALL, VIEWED FROM LIBRARY SQUARE, 218
INTERIOR OF DINING HALL, 219
THE ENGINEERING SCHOOL, FROM COLLEGE PARK, 220
ENTRANCE TO ENGINEERING SCHOOL, 222
HALL AND STAIRCASE, ENGINEERING SCHOOL, 223
CARVINGS AT BASE OF STAIRCASE, 224
THE PRINTING OFFICE, FROM NEW SQUARE, 225
VIEW IN THE COLLEGE PARK--LIBRARY--ENGINEERING SCHOOL, 228
THE MEDICAL SCHOOL, 229
THE MUSEUM (TENNIS COURT), 230
THE DISSECTING ROOM, 231
THE PRINTING OFFICE, 233
PULPIT IN DINING HALL, 234
PORTRAIT OF ARCHBISHOP USSHER, 238
PORTRAIT OF WILLIAM KING, D.D., 241
BUST OF DR. DELANY, 243
PORTRAIT OF WILLIAM MOLYNEUX, 244
BUST OF DEAN SWIFT, 244
PORTRAIT OF THOMAS SOUTHERNE, 245
PORTRAIT OF WILLIAM CONGREVE, 247
PORTRAIT OF BISHOP BERKELEY, 249
PORTRAIT OF EARL OF CLARE, 256
PORTRAIT OF LORD PLUNKET, 258
FAC-SIMILE OF ORIGINAL MS. OF “THE BURIAL OF SIR JOHN
MOORE,” 260, 261
BUST OF JAMES MACCULLAGH, 263
PORTRAIT OF CHARLES LEVER, 263
TOMB OF BISHOP BERKELEY, 264
COMMUNION CUPS--MEADE, 1760; GARRET WESLEY, 1751;
CAUFIELD, 1690, 267
SALVER--GILBERT, 1734, 268
THE COLLEGE MACE, 271
PUNCH BOWLS--PLUNKET, 1702; MEADE, 1708, 272
DUNCOMBE CUP, 1680; PALLISER CUP, 1709, 273
EPERGNE (REIGN OF GEORGE II.), 274
BOTANICAL GARDENS--THE POND. WINTER, 281
[Illustration: (Decorative section ending)]
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]
CHAPTER I.[1]
FROM THE FOUNDATION TO THE CAROLINE CHARTER.
_Laudamus te, benignissime Pater, pro serenissimis,
Regina Elizabetha hujus Collegii conditrice,
Jacobo ejusdem munificentissimo auctore,
Carolo conservatore,
Ceterisque benefactoribus nostris._
THE CAROLINE GRACE.
The origin of the University of Dublin is not shrouded in darkness,
as are the origins of the Universities of Bologna and Oxford. The
details of the foundation are well known, in the clear light of
Elizabethan times; the names of the promoters and benefactors are
on record; and yet when we come to examine the dates current in
the histories of the University and the relative merits of the
promoters, there arise many perplexities. The grant of the Charter
is in the name of Queen Elizabeth, and we record every day in the
College our gratitude for her benefaction; but it is no secret that
she was urged to this step by a series of advisers, of whom the
most important and persuasive remained in the background.
The project of founding a University in Ireland had long been
contemplated, and the current histories record various attempts,
as old as 1311, to accomplish this end--attempts which all failed
promptly, and produced no effect upon the country, unless it were
to afford to the Roman Catholic prelates, who petitioned James II.
to hand over Trinity College to their control, some colour for
their astonishing preamble.[2] It is not the province of these
chapters to narrate or discuss these earlier schemes. One feature
they certainly possessed--the very feature denied them in the
petition just named. Most of them were essentially ecclesiastical,
and closely attached to the Cathedral corporations. There seems
never to have been a secular teacher appointed in any of them--not
to speak of mere frameworks, like that of the University of
Drogheda. Another feature also they all present: they are without
any reasonable endowment, the only serious offer being that of
Sir John Perrott in 1585, who proposed the still current method
of exhibiting English benevolence towards Ireland by robbing one
Irish body to endow another. In this case, S. Patrick’s Cathedral,
“because it was held in superstitious reverence by the people,”
was to be plundered of its revenues to set up two Colleges--one
in Armagh and one in Limerick. This plan was thwarted, not only
by the downfall of its originator (Perrott), but by the active
opposition of an eminent Churchman--Adam Loftus, the Archbishop
of Dublin. The violent mutual hostility of these two men may have
stimulated each to promote a public object disadvantageous to the
other. Perrott urged the disendowment of S. Patrick’s because he
knew that the Archbishop had retained a large pecuniary interest
in it. Perhaps Loftus promoted a rival plan because he feared
some future revival of Perrott’s scheme. Both attest their bitter
feelings: for in his defence upon his trial Perrott calls the
Archbishop his deadly enemy; and Loftus, in the Latin speech made
in Trinity College when he resigned the Provostship, takes special
credit for having resisted the overbearing fury of Perrott, and
having gained for Leinster the College which the other sought to
establish either in Armagh or Limerick, exposed to the dangers of
rebellion and devastation.[3] But before this audience, who knew
the circumstances, he does not make any claim to have been the
original promoter of the foundation. Even in his defence of S.
Patrick’s, he had a supporter perhaps more persuasive, because he
was more respected. It is mentioned in praise of Henry Ussher, “he
so lucidly and with such strength of arguments defended the rights
of S. Patrick’s Church, which Perrott meant to turn into a College,
that he averted that dire omen.”[4] Nevertheless, the Archbishop is
generally credited with being the real founder of Trinity College,
and indeed his speeches to the citizens of Dublin, of which two are
still extant, might lead to that conclusion. But other and more
potent influences were at work.
Some years before, Case, in the preface to his _Speculum Moralium
Quæstionum_ (1585), had addressed the Chancellors of Cambridge and
Oxford conjointly on the crying want of a proper University, to
subdue the turbulence and barbarism of the Irish. This appeal was
not original, or isolated, or out of sympathy with the age. Such
laymen as Spencer, and as Bryskett, Spencer’s host near Dublin,
must have long urged similar arguments. In 1547, Archbishop George
Browne had forwarded to Sir William Cecil a scheme for establishing
a College with the revenues of the then recently suppressed S.
Patrick’s.[5] Another scheme is extant, endorsed by Cecil, dated
October, 1563, with salaries named, but not the source of the
endowment. In 1571, John Ussher, in applying for the rights of
staple at the port of Dublin, says in his petition that he intends
to leave his fortune to found a College in Dublin. In 1584, the
Rev. R. Draper petitions Burghley to have the University founded at
Trim, in the centre of the Pale, as this site possessed a waterway
to Drogheda, and was furnished with great ancient buildings, then
deserted, and falling into decay.
But in addition to these appeals of sentiment, there were practical
men at work. Two successive Deputies, Sir Henry Sidney and Sir John
Perrott, had urged the necessity of some such foundation (1565,
1585), and the former had even offered pecuniary aid. The Queen,
long urged in this direction, had ultimately been persuaded, as
appears from her Warrant, that the City of Dublin was prepared
to grant a site, and help in building the proposed College; and
the City, no doubt, had been equally persuaded that the Queen
would endow the site. The practical workers in this diplomacy have
been set down in history as Cambridge men. This is one of those
true statements which disguise the truth. The real agitators in
the matter were Luke Challoner and Henry Ussher. A glance at Mr.
Gilbert’s _Assembly Rolls of the City of Dublin_ the reign of
Elizabeth will show how both family names occur perpetually in
the Corporation as mayors, aldermen, etc.[6] The very site of the
future College had been let upon lease to a Challoner and to the
uncle of an Ussher.[7] These were the influential City families
which swayed the Corporation. Henry Ussher,[8] who had become
Archdeacon of Dublin, went as emissary to Court; Challoner[9]
superintended the gathering of funds and the laying out of the
site, which his family had rented years before. It was therefore
by Dublin men--by citizens whose sons had merely been educated
at Cambridge, and had learned there to appreciate University
culture--that Trinity College was really founded. They had learned
to compare Cambridge and Oxford, with Dublin, life, and when they
came home to their paternal city, they felt the wide difference.
Queen Elizabeth, in her Warrant, puts the case quite differently.
She does not, indeed, make the smallest mention of Loftus, but of
the prayer of the City of Dublin, preferred by Henry Ussher, thus:
_December 29, 1592._
ELIZABETH, R.
Trustee and right well beloved we greet you well, where[as]
by your Lrēs, and the rest of our Councell joyned with you,
directed to our Councell here, wee perceive that the Major and
the Cittizens of Dublin are very well disposed to grant the
scite of the Abbey of Allhallows belonging to the said Citty to
the yearly value of Twenty pounds to serve for a Colledge for
learning, whereby knowledge and Civility might be increased by
the instruction of our people there, whereof many have usually
heretofore used to travaile into ffrance Italy and Spaine to
gett learning in such forreigne universities, whereby they have
been infected with poperie and other ill qualities, and soe
became evill subjects, &c.[10]
The Usshers and the Challoners had no inclination to go to
Spain or France, nor is it likely that they ever thought they
would prevent the Irish Catholic priesthood from favouring this
foreign education. They desired to ennoble their city by giving
it a College similar to those of Oxford and Cambridge, and they
succeeded.
The extant speech of Adam Loftus, to which I have already referred,
makes no allusion to these things. His argument is homely enough.
Guarding himself from preaching the doctrine of good works,
which would have a Papistical complexion, he urges the Mayor
and Corporation to consider how the trades had suffered by the
abolition of the monasteries, under the previous Sovereign; how
the city of Oxford and town of Cambridge have flourished owing
to their Colleges; how the prosperity of Dublin, now depending
on the presence of the Lord Deputy and his retinue and the Inns
of Court, will be increased by a College, which would bring
strangers, and with them money, to the citizens. Thus it will be
a means of civilising the nation and enriching the city, and will
enable many of their children to work their own advancement, “and
in order thereto ye will be pleased to call a Common Council and
deliberate thereon, having first informed the several Masters of
every Company of the pregnant likelihood of advantage,” etc. Again,
“it is my hearty desire that you would express your and the City’s
thankfulness to Her Majesty,” etc.
This harangue, in which “our good Lord the Archbushopp” gives
himself the whole credit of the transaction, is said to have
been delivered “soon after the Quarter Sessions of St. John the
Baptist”--viz., about July, but in what year I cannot discover.
Mr. Gilbert says, “_after Easter_, in the year 1590.” In Loftus’
Latin speech occurs--“As soon as I had proposed it to the Mayor
and Sheriffs, without any delay they assembled in full conclave
and voted the whole site of the monastery.” But in the meetings of
the Dublin Council there is no allusion whatever to this speech,
no thanks to the Queen, no resolution on the matter whatever, till
under the date “Fourth Friday after December, 1590” (33 Elizabeth),
we find the following modest business entry:--“Forasmoch as there
is in this Assembly by certayne well-disposed persons petition
preferred,[11] declaring many good and effectual persuacions to
move our furtherance for setting upp and erecting a Collage for
the bringing upp of yeouth to learning, whereof we, having a good
lyking, do, so farr as in us lyeth, herby agree and order that the
scite of Alhallowes and the parkes thereof shalbe wholly gyven for
the erection of a Collage there; and withall we require that we
may have conference with the preferrers of the said peticion to
conclude how the same shalbe fynished.”[12] The Queen’s Warrant is
signed the 29th December, 1592 (34 Elizabeth).[13] It is hard to
find any logical place for the Archbishop’s speech, either before,
between, or after these dates and documents.
At all events, the Queen gave a Warrant and Charter, some small
Crown rents on various estates in the South and West of Ireland,
and presently, upon further petition, a yearly gift of nearly £400
from the Concordatum Fund, which latter the College enjoyed till
the present century, when it was resumed by the Government. From
the Elizabethan Crown rents the College now derives about £5 per
annum. The Charter was surrendered for that of Charles I.
Thus the benevolences of Elizabeth, like the buildings of her
foundation, have dwindled away and disappeared.
The Archbishop’s sounding words have had their weight in benefiting
his own memory, as has been shown, beyond his merits in this matter.
The modest gift of the Corporation of Dublin, consisting of 28
acres of derelict land partly invaded by the sea, has become a
splendid property, in money value not less than £10,000 a-year, in
convenience and in dignity to the College perfectly inestimable.
[Illustration: THE OLDEST MAP OF THE COLLEGE (1610).]
The necessary sum for repairing the decayed Abbey of All Hallowes,
and for what new buildings the College required, was raised by
an appeal of the Lord Deputy Fitzwilliam (dated March 11, 1591)
to the owners of landed property all over Ireland. The list of
these contributions is very curious, and also very liberal, if we
consider that the following sums represent perhaps eight times as
much in modern days:--
_£ s. d._
“The Lord Deputy, 200 0 0
Archbishop Adam Loftus, 100 0 0
Sir Thomas Norreys, Vice-President
of Munster, 100 0 0
Advanced by his means in the Province
of Munster, 100 0 0
Sir Francis Shane, 100 0 0
” ” a-year for his life, 20 0 0
Sir Warham St. Leger, 50 0 0
Sir Richard Dyer, 100 0 0
Sir Henry Bagnall, 100 0 0
Sir Richard Bingham, 20 0 0
The Province of Connaught by same, 100 0 0
The County of Galway by same, 100 0 0
The town of Drogheda, 40 0 0
The city of Dublin, 27 0 0
A Concordatum from the Privy
Council, 200 0 0
Alderman John Foster (for the Iron-work), 30 0 0
Lord Chief Justice Gardiner, 20 0 0
Lord Primate of Ireland [Garvey], 76 0 0
Sir Henry Harrington, 50 0 0
Thomas Jones, Bishop of Meath, 50 0 0
The gentlemen of the Barony of
Lecale, 59 0 0
Sir Hugh M‘Ginnis, with other gentlemen
of his county [Down], 140 0 0
The clergy of Meath, 30 0 0
Thomas Molyneux, Chancellor of the
Exchequer, 40 0 0
Luke Chaloner, D.D., 10 0 0
Edward Brabazon, 15 0 0
Sir George Bourchier, 30 0 0
Christopher Chartell, 40 0 0
Sir Turlough O’Neill, 100 0 0
“These sums amount to over £2,000, and they must have been
considerably supplemented, for we have a return made by Piers
Nugent with respect to one of the baronies in the County of
Westmeath, in which he gives the names of eleven gentlemen in
that barony who are prepared to contribute according to their
freeholds, proportionally to other freeholders of Westmeath.
“Money, however, came in very slowly, specially from the South of
Ireland; Sir Thomas Norreys informed Dr. Chaloner that the County
of Limerick agreed to give 3s. 4d. out of every Plough-land,
and he promised to do his best to draw other counties to some
contribution, but he adds, ‘I do find devotion so cold as that I
shall hereafter think it a very hard thing to compass so great a
work upon so bare a foundation.’
“Dr. Luke Chaloner seems to have been the active agent in
corresponding with the several contributors, and to have been
most diligent in collecting subscriptions.”[14]
The coldness of Limerick--perhaps disappointed at the failure of
Perrott’s scheme--contrasted with the zeal of Dublin. Dr. Stubbs
quotes from Fuller, the Church historian, a statement which the
latter had heard from credible persons then resident in Dublin,
that during the building of the College--that is to say, for
over a year--it never rained, except at night. This historically
incredible statement is of real value in showing the feelings of
the people who were persuaded of it. The great interest and keen
hopes of the city in the founding of the College are expressed in
this legendary way.
Thus by the earnestness and activity of some leading citizens
of Dublin, supported by the voice of educated opinion in
Cambridge, the eloquence of the Archbishop, and the sound policy
of Queen Elizabeth’s advisers, Trinity College was founded. The
foundation-stone was laid by the Mayor of Dublin, Thomas Smith, and
for at least 150 years the liberality of the Corporation of Dublin
was commemorated in our prayers.
“We give Thee thanks for the Most Serene Princess Elizabeth, our
most illustrious Foundress; for King James and King Charles, our
most munificent Benefactors, and for our present Sovereign, our
Most Gracious Conservator and Benefactor; for the Right Honourable
the Lord Mayor, together with his brethren, the Aldermen, and
the whole assembly of the citizens of Dublin, and all our other
benefactors, through whose Bounty we are here maintained for the
exercise of Piety and the increase of Learning,” etc.[15]
[Illustration: THE PRAYER BEFORE SERMON.
_Let thy merciful Ears, O Lord, be open to the Prayers of thy
Humble Servants, and grant that thy_ Holy Spirit _may direct and
guide us in all our ways, and be more especially assistant to us in
the Holy Actions of this day, in enabling us with_ grateful Hearts
_and_ zealous Endeavors _to celebrate this Pious_ Commemoration,
_and to answer to our Studies and Improvements all the great and
useful ends of our_ Munificent Founders _and_ Benefactors. _We
render thee humble Praise and Thanks, O Lord, for the Most Serene
Princess Queen_ Elizabeth, _our_ Illustrious Foundress; _for
King_ James _the_ First, _our most_ Liberal Benefactor; _King_
Charles _the_ First _and_ Second, _our_ Gratious _and_ Munificent
Conservators; _for the protection and bounty we have received
from their present_ Majesties, _our most_ Indulgent Patrons _and_
Restorers; _for the Favour of our present Governours, the_ Right
Honorable _the_ Lords-Justices; _for the_ Lord Mayor _and Goverment
of this_ City, _our Generous Benefactors_; _for the_ Nobility,
Clergy, _and_ Gentry _of this Kingdom_; _thrô whose Bounty and
Charitable Generosity we are here Educated and Established_;
_for the Improvement of Piety and Religion, the advancement of
Learning, and to supply the growing necessities of Church and
State_; _beseeching thee to bless them all, their Posterity,
Successors, Relations, and Dependants, with both_ Temporal _and_
Eternal _blessings, and to give us Grace to live_ worthy _of these
thy Mercies, and that as we grow in_ Years _so we may_ grow _in_
Wisdom, _and_ Knowledg, _and_ Vertue, _and all that is praiseworthy
thrô_ Jesus Christ _our_ Lord]
Such being the true history of the foundation of Trinity College,
as the mother of an University, to be a Corporation with a common
seal, it was natural that upon that seal the Corporation should
assume a device implying its connection with Dublin. Accordingly,
though there is no formal record of the granting of arms to the
College, the present arms, showing it to be a place of learning,
Royal and Irish, add the Castle of the Seal of the Corporation
of Dublin. Dr. Stubbs quotes (note, p. 320) a description of
it in Latin elegiacs, of which the _arx ignita_--towers _fired
proper_--are a modification of the Dublin arms,[16] which I have
found on illuminated rolls of the age of Charles I. preserved by
the City. But this description is undated, and although he ascribes
it to the early years of the 17th century, it will be hard to prove
it older than the seal extant in clear impressions, which bears
the date 1612 above the shield, and upon it the towers, not fired,
but _domed and flagged_. This date may even imply that the arms
were then granted, and that it is the original form.[17] The
recurrence of the domes and flags upon some of our earliest plate
(dated 1666) gives additional authority for this feature, nor have
we any distinct or dated evidence for the _fired towers_, adopted
in the 17th century by the City also, earlier than the time of
Charles II., when they are given in a Heraldic MS. preserved in the
Bermingham Tower. I have digressed into this antiquarian matter in
proof of my opening assertion that the details of the foundation
are often obscure, while the main facts are perfectly clear.
[Illustration: THE EARLIEST EXTANT COLLEGE SEAL.]
Let us now turn from our new-founded College to cast a glance
at the City of Dublin of that day, as it is described to us by
Elizabethan eye-witnesses, and as we can gather its features from
the early records of the City and the College. Mr. Gilbert has
quoted from Stanihurst’s account of Dublin, published in 1577, a
curious picture of the wealth and hospitality displayed by the
several Mayors and great citizens of his acquaintance; and that
the Mayoralty was indeed a heavy tax upon the citizen who held
it, appears from the numerous applications of Mayors, recorded in
the City registers, for assistance, and the frequent voting of
subsidies of £100, though care is taken to warn the citizens that
this is to establish no precedent. The City is described as very
pleasant to live in, placed in an exceptionally beautiful valley,
with sea, rivers, and mountains around. Wealthy and civilised as it
was, it would have been much more so, but that the port was open,
and the river full of shoals, and that by the management of the
citizen merchants a great mart of foreign traders, which used to
assemble outside the gates and undersell them, had been abolished.
The somewhat highly-coloured picture drawn by Stanihurst is
severely criticised by Barnabe Rich,[18] who gives a very different
account, telling us that the architecture was mean, and the whole
City one mass of taverns, wherein was retailed at an enormous
price, ale, which was brewed by the richer citizens’ wives. The
moral character of the retailers is described as infamous. This
liquor traffic, and the extortion of the bakers, are, to Rich,
the main features in Dublin. The Corporation records show orders
concerning the keeping of the pavements, the preserving of the
purity of the water-supply, which came from Tallaght, and the
cleansing of the streets from filth and refuse thrown out of the
houses. These orders alternate with regulations to control the
beggars and the swine which swarmed in the streets. Furthermore,
says Stanihurst--“There are so manie other extraordinarie beggars
that dailie swarme there, so charitablie succored, as that they
make the whole civitie in effect their hospitall.” There was a
special officer, the City beadle, entitled “master” or “warden” of
the beggars, and “custos” or “overseer” of the swine, whose duty
it was to banish strange beggars from the City, and keep the swine
from running about the streets.[19]
In one of the orders relating to this subject, dated the 4th Friday
after 25th December, 1601, we find the following:--“Wher[as]
peticion is exhibitid by the commons, complaineing that the
auncient lawes made, debarring of swyne coming in or goeing in
the streetes of this cittie, is not put in execution, by reyson
whearof great danger groweth therby, as well for infection, as
also the poore infantes lieing under stales and in the streetes
subject to swyne, being a cattell much given to ravening, as
well of creatures as of other thinges, and alsoe the cittie and
government therof hardlie spoken of by the State, wherin they
requirid a reformacion: it is therfore orderid and establyshid,
by the aucthoritie of this assemblie, that yf eny sowe, hogge, or
pigge shalbe found or sene, ether by daie or nyght, in the streetes
within the cittie walles, it shalbe lawfull for everye man to kill
the same sowe, hogge, or pigge, and after to dispose the same at
his or their disposition, without making recompence to such as
owneth the same.”
Thus this present characteristic of the country parts of Ireland
then infected the capital. I have quoted the text of the order for
reasons which will presently appear.
The City walls, with their many towers, and protected by a
fosse, enclosed but a small area of what we consider Old Dublin.
S. Patrick’s and its Liberty, under the jurisdiction of the
Archbishop, who lived in the old Palace (S. Sepulchre’s) beside
that Cathedral, was still outside the walls, which excluded even
most of Patrick Street, and was apparently defended by ramparts of
its own. Thomas Street was still a suburb, and lined with thatched
houses, for we find an order (1610) that henceforth, owing to
the danger of fire[20] in the suburbs, in S. Thomas Street, S.
Francis Street, in Oxmantown, or in S. Patrick Street, “noe house
which shall from hensforth be built shalbe covered with thach, but
either with slate, tyle, shingle, or boord, upon paine of x.li.
current money of England.” We may therefore imagine these suburbs
as somewhat similar to those of Galway in the present day, where
long streets of thatched cabins lead up to the town. Such I take to
have been the row of houses outside Dame’s Gate, the eastern gate
of the city, which is marked on the map of 1610. They only occupy
the north side of the way, and for a short distance. There had long
been a public way to Hogging or Hoggen Green, one of the three
commons of the City, and the condition of this exit from Dublin may
be inferred from an order made in 1571, which the reader will find
below.[21]
The reader will not object to have some more details about the
state of this College Green, now the very heart of the City, in
the days when the College was founded. In 1576 the great garden
and gate of the deserted Monastery of All Hallowes was ordered to
be allotted for the reception of the infected, and the outer gate
of All Hallowes to be repaired and locked. In the next year (and
again in 1603), it is ordered that none but citizens shall pasture
their cattle on this and the other greens. It is ordered in 1585
that no unringed swine shall be allowed to feed upon the Green,
being noisome and hurtful, and “coming on the strand greatly hinder
thincrease of the fyshe;” the tenant of All Hallowes, one Peppard,
shall impound or kill them, and allow no flax to be put into the
ditches, “for avoyding the hurte to thincrease of fyshe.” In the
same year the use and keeping of the Green is leased for seven
years to Mr. Nicholas Fitzsymons, to the end the walking places
may be kept clean, and no swyne or forren cattle allowed to injure
them. In 1602 Sir George Carye is granted a part of the Green
to build a Hospital, and presently Dr. Challoner and others are
granted another to build a Bridewell; and this is marked on the map
of 1610, near the site of the present S. Andrew’s Church.[22]
This is our evidence concerning the ground between the College and
the City--an interval which might well make the founders speak of
the former as _juxta_ Dublin. It was a place unoccupied between the
present Castle and College gates, with the exception of a row of
cottages, probably thatched, forming a short row at the west end
and north side of Dame Street, and under that name; opposite to
this was the ruined church of S. Andrew. On the Green were pigs and
cattle grazing; refuse of various kinds was cast out in front of
the houses of Dame Street, despite the Corporation order; a little
stream crossed this space close to the present College gate, and
the only two buildings close at hand, when the student looked out
of his window or over the wall, were a hospital for the infected,
by the river, and a bridewell on his way to the City.
Further off, the view was interesting enough. The walled City,
with its gates, crowned the hill of Christ Church, and the four
towers of the Castle were plainly visible. A gate, over a fosse,
led into the City, where first of all there lay on the left hand
the Castle entrance, with the ghastly heads of great rebels still
exposed on high poles. Here the Lord Deputy and his men-at-arms
kept their state, and hither the loyal gentry from the country came
to express their devotion and obtain favours from the Crown. In the
far distance to the south lay the Dublin and Wicklow mountains,
not as they now are, a delightful excursion for the student on
his holiday, but the home of those wild Irish whose raids up to
the City walls were commemorated by the feast of Black Monday at
Cullenswood, whither the citizens went well guarded, and caroused,
to assert themselves against the natives who had once surprised
and massacred 500 of them close to that wood. The river, the sea,
and the Hill of Howth, held by the Baron of Howth in his Castle,
closed the view to the east. The upland slopes to the north were
near no wild country, and therefore Oxmantown and S. Mary’s Abbey
were already settled on the other bank of the river.
We must remember also, as regards the civilisation of Dublin,
that though the streets swarmed not only with beggars and swine,
but with rude strangers from the far country, yet the wealthy
citizens were not only rich and hospitable, but advanced enough
to send their sons to Cambridge. This is proved by the Usshers
and Challoners, and we may be sure these were not solitary cases.
As regards education, there are free schools and grammar schools
constantly mentioned in the records of the time. It is well known
that one Fullerton, a very competent Scotchman, was sent over by
James VI. of Scotland to promote that King’s interests, and that
he had a Hamilton for his assistant, who afterwards got great
grants of land for himself, as Lord Clandeboye, and also obtained
for the College those Crown rents which resulted in producing its
great wealth. Fullerton, a learned man, was ultimately placed in
the King’s household. Both were early nominated lay Fellows of the
College. These were people of education who understood how to teach.
But most probably the great want in Dublin was the want of books.
There must have been a very widespread complaint of this, when it
occurred to the army which had defeated the Spaniards at Kinsale
(in 1601) to give a large sum from their spoil for books to endow
the new College.[23] This sent the famous James Ussher to search
for books in England, and laid the foundation for that splendid
collection of which the Archbishop’s own books formed the next
great increase, obtained by the new military donation of Cromwell’s
soldiers in 1654. There is probably no other so great library in
the world endowed by the repeated liberality of soldiers. Still
we hear that, even after the founding of the collection, James
Ussher thought it necessary to go every third year to England, and
to spend in reading a month at Oxford, a month at Cambridge, and
a month in London, for the purpose of adding to that mass of his
learning which most of us would think already excessive. Yet it is
a pity that smaller men, in more recent days, did not follow his
example, and so save the College from that provincialism with which
it was infected even in our own recollection.
Let us now turn to the internal history of the College. The great
crises in the first century of its existence were the Rebellion
under Charles I. and the civil war under James II., ending with
the Settlements by which Charles II. and William III. secured the
future greatness of the Institution. This brief sketch cannot
enter into details, especially into the tedious internal quarrels
of the Provost and Fellows; we are only concerned with the
general character of the place, its religion, its morals, and its
intellectual tendencies. Upon all these questions we have hitherto
rather been put off with details than with a philosophical survey
of what the College accomplished.
It has been well insisted on by Mr. Heron, the Roman Catholic
historian of Trinity College, that the Charter of Elizabeth is
neither exclusive nor bigoted as regards creed. Religion, civility,
and learning are the objects to be promoted, and it is notorious
that the great Queen’s policy, as regards the first, was to
insist upon outward conformity with the State religion without
further inquisition. A considerable number of the Corporation
which endowed the new College were Roman Catholics, and we know
that even the Usshers had near relations of that creed. There was
no insistence that the Fellows should take orders--we know that
Provost Temple, and Fullerton and Hamilton, among the earliest
Fellows, were laymen,--and though in very early days the degree
of Doctor conferred was apparently always that in Theology, the
Charter provides for all the Faculties, and it was soon felt that
Theology and the training of clergy were becoming too exclusively
the work of the place. The constant advices from Chancellors and
from other advisers to give special advantages to the natives, and
the repeated attempts to teach the Irish language, and through its
medium to educate the Irish, show plainly that they understood
Elizabeth’s foundation as intended for the whole country, and more
especially for those of doubtful loyalty in their creed, who were
tempted to go abroad for their education.
“A certain illustrious Baron,” says Father Fitz-Simons, writing
in 1603, “whose lady, my principal benefactress, sent his son to
Trinity College. Notwithstanding my obligations to them for my
support, I, with the utmost freedom, earnestness, and severity,
informed and taught them, that it was a most impious thing, and a
detestable scandal, to expose their child to such education. The
boy was taken away at once, and so were others, after that good
example. The College authorities are greatly enraged at this, as
they had never before attracted any [Roman Catholic] pupil of
respectability, and do not now hope to get any for the future.
Hence I must be prepared for all the persecution which their
impiety and hatred can bring down upon me.”[24]
On the other hand, the early Provosts imported from Cambridge,
Travers, Alvey, Temple, were men who were baulked in their English
promotion by their acknowledged Puritanism--a school created or
promoted by that desperate bigot Cartwright, who preached the
most violent Genevan doctrines from his Chair of Divinity in
Cambridge. But these men, who certainly were second to none in
the intolerance of their principles, were themselves in danger of
persecution from the Episcopal party in England. Complaints were
urged against Temple for neglecting to wear a surplice in Chapel--a
great stumbling-block in those days; the Puritanism of the College
was openly assailed, so that its Governors were rather occupied
in defending themselves than in attacking the creed of others.
Any sect which is in danger of persecution is compelled so far to
advocate toleration; we may be sure that the Irish Fellows who
lived among Catholics in a Catholic nation curbed any excessive
zeal on the part of the Puritan Provosts; and so we find that they
did not scruple to admit natives whom they suspected, or even
knew, to be Papists. Moreover, the Fellows and their Provost were
very busy in constitution-mongering. They had the power by Charter
of making and altering statutes--a source of perpetual dispute;
and, besides, the Plantation of Ulster by James I. in 1610 gave
them their first large estates, which were secured to them by the
influence of Fullerton and Hamilton, already mentioned as Scottish
agents of the King. Provost Temple spent most of his time either in
framing statutes or in quarrelling about leases with his Fellows.
A review of the various documents still extant concerning these
quarrels shows that the first of the lay Provosts was not inferior
in importance to his two successors in the eighteenth century, and
that in his day all the main problems which have since agitated the
Corporation were raised and discussed.
In the first place we may name the distinction between University
and College, one often attempted by theorists, and which may
any day become of serious importance if a new College were
founded under the University, but one which has practically had
no influence in the history of Trinity College. We even find
such hybrid titles as Fellow of the University, and Professor
of the College, used by people who ought to have known the
impropriety.[25] Temple, with the consent of his Fellows, sought
to obtain a separate Charter for a University, and drew up, for
this and the College, Statutes which Dr. Stubbs has quoted.
The second point in Temple’s policy was an innovation which took
root, and transformed the whole history of the College. It was
the distinction of Senior and junior Fellows, not merely into
separate classes as regards salary and duties, but into Governors
and subjects. It was rightly felt that, after some years’ constant
lecturing, the Fellows who still adhered to the College should
have leisure for their studies, and for literary work, as well
as a better income, in reward of their services. But when Temple
made a College Statute that the Seniors should govern not only
the scholars and ordinary students, but also the Junior Fellows
and Probationers (which last correspond somewhat to our present
Non-Tutor Fellows), he soon came into conflict with the Charter,
which gave many privileges--the election, for example, of the
Provost--to all the Fellows without distinction; and on this
question arose a great dispute immediately on Temple’s death, there
being actually two Provosts elected--one (Mede) by the Seniors,
the other (R. Ussher) by the Juniors. Bedell was only elected by a
compromise between the two parties, with distinct protests on the
part of the Juniors.[26] The Caroline Statutes finally decided the
matter, and gave the whole control to the Seniors.
Whether this great change, introduced by Temple, and certainly
promoted by Ussher, has been a benefit or an injury to the College,
is a question not easy to answer. There is no doubt that a small
body, such as the Governing Board of Provost and Senior Fellows,
is far more likely to carry out a consistent policy, and even to
decide promptly, where discussion and divergence of opinion among
a larger number cause delay and paralyse action. But, on the other
hand, the concentration of power into the hands of a small and
irremovable body sets temptations before its members to look after
their own interests unduly, and cumulate upon themselves offices
and emoluments to the damage of the Corporation.
The reservation of a large number of offices to the Senior Fellows,
and the consequent appointment, occasionally, of incompetent
persons to discharge important duties, were the necessary result
of such an arrangement, and might be of great injury to the
Corporation. It might even result in the trafficking in offices,
or in acts of distinct injustice towards the other members of the
Corporation, which could not have been committed had the acts of
the Governing Body been subject to the public criticism and control
of the whole body of Fellows.
On the other hand, as some working Committee must be selected to
administer the affairs of the College, nothing was more obvious to
Temple or to Ussher than that those who had been Fellows for eight
or ten years should be preferred to those who had just entered
the Corporation. In a body, however, of celibates, with many good
livings and other promotions around them, it never occurred to
the framers of the Statute that new circumstances would arise
which made a Fellowship practically a life office, and thus placed
the government in the hands of a group of men, of whom many were
disabled by age, and, moreover, distracted by family cares. We
should not stare with more wonder at a Vice-Provost of 40, than
would Ussher have stared at a Junior Fellow of 40 years’ standing.
Had such things been even dimly foreseen, it would have been easy
to avoid the danger of accumulating emolument and office upon
incompetent persons by making the Governing Body elective from the
whole Corporation.
The third question which arose in Provost Temple’s day was the
proper leasing of the College estates. The tendency to take
present profit at the expense of our successors, or to postpone
the interests of the abstract Corporation to the claims of private
friendship, is nowhere more conspicuous than in the document Dr.
Stubbs has printed (p. 32), in which the Provost, and two Senior
Fellows, the greatest names at the foundation, and the most
attached friends of the College, James Ussher and Luke Challoner,
actually consent to lease for ever all the Ulster estates to Sir
James Hamilton, their old personal friend and colleague, who had
helped the College to obtain these lands from the King. Had the
earnest endeavours of these two excellent Senior Fellows been
carried out, the College would not have owned nearly so many
hundreds, as it now owns thousands, in Ulster. This calamity was
only averted by the active interference of the Junior Fellows,
who obtained an order from the State forbidding the Board to give
perpetual leases. Nevertheless, so long as the Senior Fellows
divided the renewal fines, there was constant danger of the rents
of the College being cut down, and the incomes of the lessors
being increased: it redounds to the credit of this “Venetian
Council” that, after such vast opportunities of plundering public
property, only some few cases of breach of public trust can be
asserted against them. One of the most manifest attempts has been
just noticed. Another was partly carried through by Temple. He
obtained a lease, and appointed his son Seneschal of the Manor of
Slutmulrooney--a delightful title, but also a solid estate, which
he evidently coveted for a family property.[27]
We turn with satisfaction from such things to the two great names
in the College and the Irish Church which mark that period--Bedell
and James Ussher.
It was by rare good fortune that the nascent College secured such
a student as James Ussher. He must have made a name in any case;
yet the world is so apt to judge any system not by the average
outcome, but by the best and worst, that one such name was at
that moment of the last importance. He was the first great home
growth, and, though he refused the Provostship, he was so closely
connected with the College as Fellow, Lecturer in Divinity, as
Vice-Provost and as Vice-Chancellor, that no one has ever thought
of denying him and his fame to the College. His works and character
will be discussed in another chapter. What I am concerned with
is his attitude in the great ecclesiastical quarrels of the day.
It was no easy course to steer the Church of Ireland between the
“Scylla of Puritanism” and the “Charybdis of Popery.” Ussher
well knew that both were dangerous enemies. In his youth, owing
to his daily contact with Roman Catholic relatives, with Jesuit
controversialists, with the temporising policy of King James, who
offered further stages of toleration in return for subsidies of
money from the Irish Catholics, he was strong against the danger
on that side, and protested with prophetic wisdom that such
concessions would lead to rebellion and ruin in Ireland. In his old
age, when living constantly, either from his public importance or
his persecutions, in England, when witnessing and suffering from
the outrages of the English Revolution, he said in a conversation
with Evelyn, “that the Church would be destroyed by sectaries who
would in all likelihood bring in Popery.” The personal complexion
of his religion, his constant preaching, his great liberality
and good feeling towards pious Dissenting ministers, show that
he was a strong Protestant, and he always showed the strongest
apprehension of the ambitious policy of the Romish priesthood,
which he feared as a pressing danger; but, nevertheless, he was so
loyal a Churchman, that he was content to overlook many abuses in
the system which he administered.
It was this temper, so common in the Anglo-Irish Protestant,
which separates him in his policy from his eminent and amiable
contemporary, Bishop Bedell. But the latter was a stranger brought
over from England to be Provost, who, with all the generosity and
all the kindliness of his noble nature, set himself to instruct the
native Irish, and to work out the regeneration of these barbarians
by teaching them religion through the Irish language. So sterling
and single-hearted was the Bishop, that even the excited rebels
of 1641, amid their rapine and massacre, spared and respected the
excellent old man, and at his death honoured him with a great
public funeral. But it is plain from Primate Ussher’s dealings
with him that this policy of persuading the natives was not to the
Primate’s taste. Ussher probably believed that there were serious
dangers in the policy of reclaiming the natives through kindness,
and their priests through persuasion; and if the historians note it
as curious that, of all those who ruled the College, those by far
the most anxious to promote Irish studies were two Englishmen,[28]
Bedell and Marsh, it will be replied by many in Ireland, that this
contrast between the views of the English stranger, and of the
English settler who knows the country, is still perpetuated.
Such, then, was the attitude of the early rulers of the College,
and such their controversies. All of them that were not complete
Puritans felt what Provost Chappel says in his autobiographical
(iambic) poem--_Ruunt agmine facto in me profana turba Roma
Genevaque_. But from the very commencement the College was
Puritanical enough to save it from Ecclesiasticism. There is
therefore nothing strange in the habit of making lay Fellows read
short sermons (commonplaces) in the Chapel as part of their duty--a
practice only abandoned within the memory of our seniors in this
century.[29]
We turn to the few and meagre traditions concerning the moral
condition and conduct of the students. It must be remembered that
they came up at a very early age--12 to 14 years old are often
mentioned--and were only supposed to be partly educated when they
took their B.A. degree. There were special exercises and lectures
for three years more, and only with the M.A. were they properly
qualified. We may, indeed, be sure that the post-graduate studies
were far the more important for the serious section of the lads.
For they came up very raw and ignorant; they even had a special
schoolmaster to teach them the elements of Latin and Greek, and of
course the books they could command were both few and imperfect as
educational helps. I do not think that from the first the College
was at all abandoned to the poor or inferior classes. The very
earliest lists of names contain those of the most respectable
citizens; there were often favourite pupils of a Provost, or other
Don, who came from England, brought over with their teacher. Very
soon the Irish nobility began to send their sons. The Court of
Wards, established by King James I. in 1617, ordered that the
minors of important families in Ireland should be maintained and
educated in English habits, and in Trinity College, Dublin; and the
first instance of this kind is that of Farrall O’Gara, heir to Moy
Gara, County Sligo, who was to remain at the College from his 12th
to his 18th year. By this means many youths of quality, or at least
of important family, were enrolled among the students. The Earl of
Cork sent two sons in 1630; the famous Strafford two in 1637; and
we find Radcliffes, Wandesfords, and other aristocratic names. What
strikes us in the face of this is the extreme economy--or rather
the apparently very small prices mentioned in the various early
accounts printed by Dr. Stubbs from the Bursar’s books.[30]
This economy, however, only applies to the scholars supported by
the House, especially the _natives_, who had various privileges.
Fellow-Commoners, and Nobles, such as Strafford’s sons, were
probably allowed various indulgences. It is interesting to
notice that from the first a certain proportion of lads came, as
they now do, from the counties of England (especially Cheshire)
nearest to Dublin. On the other hand, while natives are carefully
distinguished from lads born in Ireland, I cannot find what test
was applied to determine a “native.” Even in 1613, 20 out of the
65 students are so denominated. The majority of the natives, says
Archbishop Marsh two generations later, had been born of English
parents, and were mostly of the meaner sort, but by having learned
to speak Irish with their Irish nurses, or fosterers, had acquired
some knowledge of the vernacular. But they could not read or write
it. The names quoted by Bedell in 1628 suggest that this account
of the parentage is true. Conway, Baker, Davis, and Burton are
admonished for being absent from Irish prayers. These are not
Irish names. It is also added by Marsh that most of these native
scholars, bred in the College, turned Papists in James II.’s reign.
This proves that they had Irish mothers, and would have afforded
James Ussher a strong confirmation for his policy as against
Bedell’s.
This society of students was then, as it has ever since been, very
various in race, social position, and parentage, and to this not a
little of its great intellectual activity may be traced. It should
also be added here that one of the strongest natural reasons for
the great prominence of the Anglo-Irish, and the extraordinary
distinctions they have attained in every great development of the
British Empire, is that the English settlers of Elizabethan and
Jacobean days were the boldest adventurers, the young men (often of
good family) of the greatest energy and courage, to be found among
the youth of England. They came to incur great risks, to brave many
dangers, but to attain great rewards. The rapidity of promotion
among the ecclesiastics, for example, is quite astonishing: Bishops
at 30, Archbishops and Chancellors at 40, are not uncommon. And if
these daring adventurers were often unscrupulous, at all events
they and their quick-witted Irish wives produced a most uncommon
offspring.
We do not find that any hereditary turbulence showed itself in
disorders among the students. The early quarrels recorded are all
among the Fellows, and upon constitutional questions. The main
complaints against the boys were very harmless freaks, if we except
the constant apprehensions of the Deans concerning ale or tippling
houses in the city, which were assumed to be haunts of vice.
Stealing apples and cherries from the surrounding orchards was a
common offence, coupled, moreover, with climbing over the wall of
the College. It shows Ussher’s hand when we find this local feature
formally noted in the Caroline Statutes. A few of Bedell’s entries
are the following:--
_1628. July 16_ and _18._--At the examinations each forme was
censured, and it was agreed that none shall ascend out of one
forme to another, however absent, till he be examined.
_August 18._--Examination for Scholars--Apposers, Mr. Thomas and
Mr. Fitzgerald.
_August 21._--The Bachelors to be hearers of the Hebrew Lecture,
unless they that were able to proceed in that tongue by their
private industry, and those are to help in the collation of the
MSS. of the New Testament in Greek. Twelve Testaments were given
by Sir William Ussher for the Irish.
_August 24._--A meeting about the accounts. Warning given of town
haunting and swearing. The Deans requested to appoint secret
monitors for them.
_September 13._--The Dean may punish for going in cloaks by the
consent of the Provost and greater part. Mr. Temple’s letters to
the Provost and Fellows answered--his cause of absence to study
in Oxford not _gravis_ much less _gravissima_.
_September 22._--The course for banishing boys, not students, by
occasion of Mr. Lowther’s boy striking Johnson consented to, viz.
that fire and water, bread and beer and meat be denied them by
the butler and cook, under pain of 12d. _toties quoties_.
_September 23._--Deane and Wilson mulcted a month’s Commons for
their insolent behaviour, assaulting and striking the butler,
which was presently changed into sitting at the lower end of the
Scholars’ table for a month, and subjecting them to the rod.
The order for placing the Fellow Commoners by themselves in the
Chapel for having more room begins. Service books bought and
bound for the natives.
_October._--Election of Burgesses for Parliament. The Provost
and Mr. Donellan, upon better advice, the Provost resigning, Mr.
Fitzgerald was chosen.
_December 28._--The Lord Primate dined in the College at the
Hall, and the same Dr. James Ware presented the petition for
renewing the lands of Kilmacrenny. Jo. Wittar admonished for
playing at cards.
_January 28._--Tho. Walworth refused to read Chapter, and
enjoined to make a confession of his fault upon his knees in the
Hall--which he disacknowledging--he had deserved expulsion.
_July 23, 1629._--Sir Walworth said to have sold his study to
haunt the town. Somers, Deane, and Elliott appointed to sit bare
for going out of the Hall before grace, and not performing it,
made to stand by the pulpit.
_April 2._--The proclamation against Priests and Jesuits came
forth.
_April 5._--Easter day, at which the forms were used for
conveniency about the Communion Table.
_April 11._--Mr. Travers, for omitting his Common place the
second time appointed, punished 13s. Mr. Tho. for omitting
prayers reading, 5s.
_May 12._--The Sophisters proposed supper to the Bachelors:
prevented by sending for them and forbidding them to attempt it.
_July 11._--The Fellow Commoners complain of Mr. Price for
forbidding them to play at bowls in the Orchard; they were
blamed, and it was shown that by Statute they could not play
there.
_July 29._--Six natives, Dominus Kerdiffe, Ds. Conway, Ds. Baker,
Ds. Davis, Ds. Kerdiffe, jun., and Burton, admonished for being
often absent from Irish Prayers.
_August 19._--The natives to lose their weekly allowance if they
are absent from prayers on the Lord’s Day.
_August 29._--Sir Springham said to keep a hawk. Rawley, for
drunkenness and knocking Strank’s head against the seat of the
Chapel, to have no further maintenance from the house.
Booth, for taking a pig of Sir Samuel Smith’s, and that openly
in the day time before many, and causing it to be dressed in
town, inviting Mr. Rollon and Sir Conway (who knew not of it) was
condemned to be whipped openly in the Hall, and to pay for the
pig.
_August 6._--Communion. Sermon upon Psalm 71. 16. The Articles of
the Church of Ireland read.[31]
The entries of the 29th August (1629) are peculiarly interesting,
but have hitherto not been understood in their local connection.
There is an entry in Mr. Gilbert’s _Assembly Roll_ (ii., p. 82)
awarding a citizen £8 for a goshawk he had purchased for the city,
which hawk had died. This is a very large sum--perhaps equal to
£70 now, and out of all proportion to the salaries and the prices
of necessaries in the College. To keep a hawk was, therefore,
somewhat like keeping an expensive hunter now, and a proof of great
extravagance. As regards the story of the pig, it was nothing more
than a comic carrying out of an order (above, p. 13) frequently
issued by the Corporation, whom Booth took at their word. It seems,
therefore, that either such proclamations were a sham, or that
they only referred to the right of citizens to interfere with the
roving swine.
[Illustration: THE SOUTH BACK OF THE ELIZABETHAN COLLEGE.]
The courts seem to have been in grass, as there is an early item
for mowing, and 1s. 4d. for an old scythe. A vegetable garden was
kept for the use of the College on the site of the present Botany
Bay Square, and the further ground belonging to the precincts is
called a firr park, which seems to mean a field of furze, much
used for fuel in those days. There was neither room nor permission
for the games and sports so vital to modern College life. The
old and strict notion of a College life, still preserved in some
Roman Catholic Colleges abroad, excluded all recreation as waste
of time. The Caroline Statutes formally forbid playing or even
loitering in the courts or gardens of the College. Nor was this
any isolated severity. In the detailed _horarium_ laid down for
a proposed College at Ripon, to be founded by James I.’s Queen
(Anne of Denmark) at this very time, every half-hour in the day
is fully occupied with study, lectures, or prayers.[32] There was
considerable license, however, allowed at Christmas, and it was
perhaps from the old Monastery of All Hallowes that the fashion
was transmitted of acting plays at that season in the College. The
performance seems to have been undertaken by the several years or
classes. In 1630 it was ordered that the play should be acted,
but not in the College. The Lord Deputy constrained the unwilling
Provost Ussher to permit it. Even in the Caroline Statutes,
remains of this Christmas license appear in the permission to play
cards--at other times strictly forbidden--in the Hall on that day.
Every 17th March (S. Patrick’s Day), the town population came in
crowds from the city to S. Patrick’s well at the southern limit of
the College (now Nassau Street, opposite Dawson Street), there to
test the miraculous powers of that holy well, which at that moment
of the year worked strange cures of diseases. We can imagine the
furze bushes or trees around this well all hung with tattered
rags, as may still be seen at wells of similar pretensions in the
wild parts of Ireland. If the enclosed S. Stephen’s Green was
still remarkable in the last century “for the incredible number of
snipes” that frequented it, so the College Park must have contained
them in abundance. But it was reserved for our grandfathers to
boast that they had shot a snipe in the College precincts.[33]
The intellectual condition of the average 16th century student is
even harder to ascertain, and I have sought in vain for adequate
materials. It does, indeed, appear that the Irish New Testament
and Prayer Book had been printed. Sir H. Sidney’s _Irish Articles
of Religion_ were brought out in 1566. John Ussher had promoted
Kearney’s _Irish Alphabet and Catechism_, produced in Dublin from
type supplied by the Queen in 1571.[34] William Ussher had produced
the New Testament in Francke’s printing, 1602. This printer is
probably the man mentioned as the “King’s printer” in 1615 (for
proclamations?). But though there is extant a proposed arrangement
with the very printer of one of these books (Kearney) to live and
work in the College,[35] there is no trace of his having done any
real service. Even the Statutes were in MS., copied out by the
hand of the Provost or Vice-Provost. The annals of Dublin show, I
believe, none but isolated printing till about 1627;[36] it was in
1641, both in Kilkenny and Waterford, as well as in Dublin, that
printing began to be used for disseminating political views. But
the earliest students must have found it very difficult to obtain
books, and there is no trace that any printing press started up
to meet this urgent want. I am now speaking only of text-books
for students, by which I mean such small and handy editions as
the Latin _Isagoge_ of Porphyry, printed at Paris in 1535, of
which copies are often found in Dublin, as the work was diligently
taught in the 17th century course. Dudley Loftus’ _Logic_ and
_Introduction_, printed in 1657 (Dublin), seem to me the earliest
books likely to have been used as text-books in Trinity College.
Strange to say, there is no copy of either in our College Library.
But the official teaching was strictly oral, and the students were
merely required to write out in theses or reproduce in disputations
what their tutors had told them. The College course, as laid down
by Laud (or Ussher?) in the Caroline Statutes, is plainly not a
course in books, but in subjects. Not a single text-book, unless
it be the _Isagoge_ of Porphyry, is specified, and this rather for
the lecturer than the students. Whatever practical relaxations
the course then laid down may have undergone, it was chiefly in
the post-graduate studies; for the officers of the College had no
power to alter or emend the programme of Laud till the year 1760,
when a special King’s Letter gave them authority to do so. This
accounts for the great quantity of lecturing which went on, each
tutor giving three hours every day, not to speak of the efforts
of the College Schoolmaster, who undertook those that were raw
in Latin and Greek. Archbishop Loftus, indeed, in his parting
address to the College (Armagh Library MS.), exhorts the new
Provost (Travers)--“See that the younger sort be well catechised,
and that you prescribe to the rest a catalogue of approved books
to be read by them as foundations of learning, both human and
divine.” But this alludes to post-graduate studies, for which the
Library was then established,[37] and not to the daily studies
of the undergraduates. Logic was the chief subject, the system
of Ramus being brought into fashion by the Cambridge Puritans,
and especially by Provost Temple, who had written a book on the
subject. Chappel was also a famous Ramist logician. Very little
mathematics was taught, but, on the other hand, Hebrew was regarded
as of equal importance with Greek; and in every subject we find the
student’s knowledge tested, not by reproduction of his reading, but
by disputations, which showed that he had so far grasped a subject
that he could attack an adversary or defend himself when attacked.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter ending)]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The writer of the first four chapters here acknowledges the
generous help received from J. R. Garstin, Esq., B.D., and the
Rev. William Reynell, B.D., both in supplying him with facts and
in correcting his proofs. This portion of the book was undertaken
by him suddenly, in default of a specialist to perform it. Hence
the large number of extracts inserted, in which the facts must rest
upon the authority of the authors quoted, as there was no time
to verify them. Of the three extant histories of the University,
those of Taylor and of Dr. Stubbs are very valuable in citing many
original documents, the former chiefly Parliamentary, the latter
from the archives of the College. Heron’s work was written for a
special purpose, which he pleads throughout, after the manner of
his profession.
[2] “That before the Reformation it [the Royal College of Dublin]
was common to all the natives of this country, ... and the ablest
scholars of the nation preferred to be professors and teachers
therein, without any distinction of orders, congregations, or
politic bodies other than that of true merit,” etc. _Cf._ _Dublin
Magazine_ for August, 1762. This golden age of Irish University
education may well be relegated to the other golden ages of
mythology.
[3] I quote the text (which has lately been printed), of which I
owe my knowledge to the kindness of Mrs. Reeves, who lent me the
late Bishop of Down’s MS. copy:--“Nolui enim Magnatum placitis me
accomodare qui summo conatu, immo cæco impetu et consutis dolis,
operam dederunt ut prope Civitatem Lymericensem vel Armachanam
fundaretur, quasi piaculum non fuisset periculis belli incendii
turbacionis et ruinæ exponere Academiam noviter fundatam, ... nulla
alia forsan ratione quam uberioris proprii quæstus gratia. Quem et
objeci viro eorundem præcipuo prænobili arteque militari conspicuo
fascibusque tunc potito, non obstante quod nimis subitaneæ iræ
impetu sæpius se monstraverat pronum ad furorem et verbera; is
enim non semel se rapi sinebat æstuantis animi violentia in
proclivitatem vim hujuscemodi inferendi aliis; notum enim est
... quam strenuum et fortem virum, sed tunc podagra laborantem
pedibusque captum percussit ipse iræ infirmitate perculsus, etc.
Non defui igitur mihi vel Academiæ obstando tanto viro,” etc. In
other words, he claims to have incurred great danger of being
thrashed by Perrott for opposing him! And he retorts the very
charge brought against himself, of having pecuniary interests in
the background.
[4] I cite from Mr. Wright’s citation of Thomas Smith’s life of
James Ussher, _Ussher Memorials_, p. 44.
[5] _Cf._ E. P. Shirley’s _Original Letters, &c._, London, 1851,
for these and other details.
[6] _Cf._ Gilbert, _op. cit._ vol. ii., for Usshers, pp. 17, 22,
65, etc.; for Challoners, pp. 45, 64, 88, 259, etc.
[7] _Op. cit._ pp. 64, 88.
[8] He was uncle to the famous James Ussher, now commonly known as
Archbishop Ussher. Henry Ussher, however, was also Archbishop of
Armagh. He was educated both at Cambridge and at Oxford, as well as
abroad.
[9] On application to Cambridge, I am informed, by the kindness
of the Registrar and of Mr. W. A. Wright of Trinity College, that
Luke Challoner (spelt Chalenor) matriculated as a pensioner October
13, 1582, took B.A. degree in 1585, and M.A. in 1589. He was never
a Fellow, or even a Scholar, of Trinity College, Cambridge, and
obtained his D.D. at one of the earliest Commencements in Dublin,
probably in 1600/1.
[10] Stubbs’ _History of the University of Dublin_, Appendix
iii., p. 354. None of the histories note that there were foreign
Colleges founded by Irish priests for the Irish at this very time
in Salamanca (opened 1592), Lisbon (1593), Douai (1594). Thus
there was an active policy to be counteracted by Elizabeth, and
these proposed foundations were probably set before her by Henry
Ussher as a pressing danger. Some account of the Constitution of
the Salamanca seminary is given in Hogan’s _Hibernia Ignatiana_,
Appendix, p. 238. The students were to be exclusively of Irish
parentage.
[11] Who these well-disposed persons were is beyond doubt. The
Queen mentions Ussher in the Warrant; the College mentions
Challoner on his tomb--
“Conditur hoc tumulo Chaloneri triste cadaver
Cujus ope et precibus conditur ista domus.”
James Ussher, in recommending a subsequent Provost (Robert Ussher),
says--“He is the son of that father at whose instance, charge, and
trust the Charter of the first foundation was obtained from Queen
Elizabeth” (_Works_, i., 103). On the epitaph of Provost Seele we
read--
“Tecta Chalonerus pia condidit; obruta Seelus
Instauravit.”
In the MS. at Armagh, written in praise of Loftus, and reporting
his speeches, we have the following (p. 228):--“Among many prudent
inducements suitable to polity and reason which moved the Queen to
establish this University and College at All Hallowes, the humble
peticion of Henry Ussher, Archdeacon of Dublin, in the name of
the Citty of Dublin, faithfully and most zealously solicited by
Dr. Luke Challoner, and as powerfully recommended and promoted
by Adam Loftus, etc., was not held the least of efficacye as to
extrinsicall impressions with the Queen in that behalf.” Here,
then, _in a panegyric of Loftus_, Archbishop and Chancellor, his
name is postponed to those of the two local men and the City
of Dublin. This fact speaks for itself. I quote these various
documents to correct the current impression that Loftus was the
real founder.
[12] Gilbert: _Ancient Records of Dublin_, ii., p. 240
[13] The _Book of Benefactions_ (first printed in the College
Calendar of 1858) gives the date of the actual grant as July 21, in
the 34th year of Elizabeth.
[14] Stubbs, _op. cit._ pp. 10, 11.
[15] From a _Book of Common Prayer_ printed in Dublin, 1721, where
it appears among the “Prayers for the use of Trinity College,
near Dublin.” “What authority there was for these prayers has not
been ascertained. They certainly were not an integral portion
of the book as adopted by the Irish Convocation, and in the
Dublin-printed edition of 1700 they first appear interpolated, in
the T.C.D. Library copy, between two of the Acts of Parliament
which were then printed in some issues of the Church of Ireland
Prayer-book.”--_J.R.G._ The prayer printed at the beginning of
Provost Ashe’s _secular sermon_, of which an illustration is given
on p. 10, was possibly the model: it was printed in 1693/4.
[16] The old Dublin seal has men-at-arms shooting with cross-bows
from the tops of the towers, which are five stories high. The cause
of the change is, I believe, known, though I have not learned it.
[17] It occurs to me, as a solution of this difficulty, that in
1612 Temple and his Fellows were occupied in preparing a Charter
and Statutes for the University, as distinguished from the College.
This scheme, when almost complete, was adjourned _sine die_. But
if the original seal contained any allusion to Trinity College as
an University, which is very possible, then this seal, dated 1612,
is the first seal of the College as such, and there may have been
another seal prepared for the University, which disappeared with
the failure of the scheme.
[18] Description of Dublin (1610).
[19] _Cf._ Gilbert’s _Ancient Records_, ii., 16, 63, 99, 142, 377,
and on Stanihurst, p. 541.
[20] The other constant cause of fire mentioned is the keeping of
ricks of furze and of faggots close to the houses.
[21] “It is agreed that no person or persons frome hensforthe shall
place any dounge on the pavement betwyxt the Dames Gate and the
Hoggen Greane; and that they shall suffer no dounge to remayne
upon the saide pavement against ther houses or gardinges in the
said streete above xxiv owres, and that they shall make clean
before their gardinges of all ramaylie, dounge, or outher fylthe
with all convenyent speade; and to place the same and all outher
dounge that shalbe caryed to the saide greane, in the greate hole
by Allhallowes, and not elsewheare upon the same greane, upon payne
of vis viiid, halfe to the spier and finder, and thother halfe to
the cyttie worckes.”--Gilbert, ii., p. 66.
[22] On the map of 1610, facsimiled on p. 7 (from Mr. Gilbert),
the Hospital and the Bridewell, on the west and north of the
College respectively, are interchanged in names or in numbers. The
descriptions in the records of each, _op. cit._ pp. 390, 420, will
prove this mistake in the map.
[23] The amount is usually stated at £1,800. Dr. Stubbs reduces it
to £700. Even so, it was a very large sum. Dr. Stubbs also proves
that there were some books in the College Library before 1600, _op.
cit._ p. 170.
[24] Fitz-Simons’ _Life and Letters_, translated and edited by E.
Hogan, S.J., p. 56. “Non sine Collegiatorum ingenti fremitu, qui
hactenus nullum alicujus æstimationis ad se pellicere potuerunt,”
evidently refers to Roman Catholic boys, if we are to defend the
learned Jesuit’s statement as one of fact.
[25] Thus a window in the College Chapel, set up as a memorial of
Bishop Berkeley, calls him a _Fellow of this University_. I need
not point out how this blunder has been exalted into an official
title by the Examining Body called the Royal University of Ireland,
which has no Professors for its University, and no College for its
Fellows.
[26] _Cf._ _op. cit._ p. 395. The decision of the Visitors had been
for the latter, but reversed by the Chancellor (Archbishop Abbot),
whose letter shows that he had not apprehended the important
distinction between Statute and Charter; the Statutes, made by the
College, being powerless to abrogate what the Charter had ordained.
[27] It is now known as Rosslea Manor, in Fermanagh, and pays the
College about £2,000 a-year.
[28] Robert Ussher was the only Irish Provost who adopted the same
policy. But he was clearly a sentimental person, as appears from
his cousin the Primate’s judgment, that he was quite too soft to
manage the College, and also from the Latin letter to the Primate
still extant (_Ussher Memorials_, p. 275), a very florid and
tasteless piece of rhetoric.
[29] It also existed at Oxford. Wesley preached in this way as a
layman.--_J. R. G._
[30] Here is a specimen of Provost Temple’s estimates:--“Allowed
to each Scholar at dinner ¾d., at supper 1d. This allowance will
be to each Scholar, out of the kitchen, 1s. 2½d. per week, or
£2 13s. 1d. per annum. After this rate, there being seventeen and
a-half messes of Scholars, and for each mess 3d. at dinner, and
4d. at supper, the allowance out of the kitchen, made to seventy
Scholars, will amount to £185 15s. per annum. The allowance to a
Scholar out of the buttery. To each Scholar allowed in bread, at
dinner ½d., and at supper a ½d., and for his weekly sizings
4d., it cometh to 11d. per week; To each Scholar, in beer, ½d.
per diem is per week, 3½d. At this rate a Scholar’s allowance,
out of the buttery, in bread and beer is 1s. 2½d. per week, or
£3 2s. 10d. per annum. Now the whole allowance of a Scholar, both
out of the kitchen and buttery, being 2s. 2¼d. per week, and £5
15s. 11d. per annum, will amount for seventy Scholars, to £405 3s.
4d.
“The allowance of a Fellow out of the kitchen, 1½d. per each
meal, or 3d. per diem, will come to 1s. 9d. per week or £4 11s. per
annum: according to this rate, there being four messes of Fellows,
and for each mess, both dinner and supper, 6d., the allowance of
the Fellows out of the kitchen will be £72 16s. per annum. The
allowance of a Fellow out of the buttery at 1d. each for bread,
and 1d. for beer, and for his weekly sizings 1½d., will be 1s.
3½d. each, and per annum £3 7s. 2d.: after this the allowances
of the sixteen Fellows out of the buttery in bread, beer, and
sizings, is £53 14s. 8d. per annum.”--_Op. cit._ p. 40. The details
sorely need explanation.
[31] Stubbs, pp. 58, 59.
[32] _Cf._ this very curious document in _Desiderata Curiosa_.
[33] “There is to be seen here (S. Stephen’s Green), during the
winter, an incredible number of snipes, invited by the swampiness
of the Green during that season, and to avoid their enemies the
sportsmen: this is an agreeable and most uncommon circumstance
not to be met with, perhaps, in any other great city in the
world.”--Harris’s _History of Dublin_ (1766), p. 481, note.
[34] _Cf._ _Ussher Memorials_, pp. 122, 128.
[35] Stubbs, p. 22.
[36] There seem to have been a good many learned books by J.
Ussher, Sir James Ware, James Barry, and Sir C. Sibthorp printed in
Dublin between 1626 and 1636. Then there seems to be a pause till
about 1650, when a continuous series of Irish prints begins.
[37] The College Library, which forms the subject of another
chapter in this book, was intended solely for graduates, and we
hear that when the victors of Kinsale voted a large part of their
prize-money for books, or when the College voted money for the same
purpose, learned men like Ussher and Challoner were forthwith sent
to England to purchase them.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]
CHAPTER II.
FROM THE CAROLINE REFORM TO THE SETTLEMENT OF WILLIAM III.
_Ruunt agmine facto_
_In me profana turba Roma Genevaque._
PROVOST CHAPPEL’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY.
The first fifty years of this History passed away without much
apparent advance. The attempt to supply additional room by
providing two residence-halls in the city (Bridge Street and Back
Lane) turned out a complete failure.[38] As the College grew richer
by King James’ gifts of Ulster lands, the quarrels of the Fellows
and Provost were increased by this new interest. They were also
still constitution-mongering, and we do not find that the only
Dublin man, Robert Ussher, who was Provost during this period,
was more successful than the imported Cambridge men. Among the
Fellows appointed, if we except the remarkable group of founders,
not a single name of note appears save Joshua Hoyle, who came from
Oxford, and who was afterwards Professor of Divinity, and Master
of University College, Oxford. The rest supplied the Church of
Ireland with some respectable dignitaries, but nothing more. We
know that these things were weighing on the mind of the great
Primate, who could remember the high hopes and the enthusiasm of
Dublin when the College was founded. He was convinced that the
Fellows wasted their energies in College politics, and that the
Provost had insufficient powers to control them. Laud surely speaks
the words of Ussher when he says that the College is reported to
him as “being as ill-governed as any in Christendom.” Archbishop
Ussher must have been determined to take from the Fellows the
management of their own affairs, and entrust it to a Provost
nominated by the Crown, administering Statutes fixed by the Crown,
and only to be altered with its sanction. This great reform
he carried out by having his friend Archbishop Laud appointed
Chancellor, and so having a new Charter forced, in 1637, upon the
College--the Caroline Statutes.[39] It was indeed a strong measure
to take from the College its self-government, but it was done
after due deliberation by wise men; and the results have certainly
answered their expectations. It should, however, be added, in
fairness to those who failed during the first 45 years to maintain
order, that the Crown, while professing to give absolute liberty by
Statute, had constantly interfered in appointments, and violated
the privileges granted by Elizabeth. Nor indeed did the Caroline
Statutes, which much internal evidence shows to be the work of
Ussher as well as Laud, succeed forthwith. The experiment was
baulked at the outset by the unfortunate appointment of Chappel as
Provost, a famous logician, but a weak and not very honest man,[40]
whose conduct was about to be impeached by the Irish Parliament,
when the Rebellion of 1641 burst upon the land. Chappel was then
Bishop of Cork, but had refused to resign the Provostship. Ten
years of misery supervened, when Chappel and the next Provost,
Wassington, fled home to England, when Faithful Tate and Dudley
Loftus strove as vice-regents to hold together the affairs of the
starving College; when the estates were in the rebels’ hands,
the valuable plate was pawned or melted, Provost Martin dying
of the plague which followed upon massacre and starvation:[41]
the intellectual heart of Ireland suffered with its members, and
responded to the agonies of the loyal population with sufferings
not less poignant.
Nevertheless, the appointment of the Lord Deputy, Ormonde (a great
benefactor to the College at the worst moment), as Chancellor is
dated the 12th March, 1644. He was chosen to succeed Laud. The
actual deed is now at Kilkenny Castle.[42] The appointment of the
Chancellor was made by the Provost (Anthony Martin, Bishop of
Meath) and a majority of the Senior Fellows. Ormonde came back with
the Restoration, and in high favour.
The horror of civil war in England was added to make the cup
flow over. Charles, Laud, and Ussher were too engrossed with
their own troubles to promote the regeneration of the College
which they had commenced, and so we find that this decennium
of anarchy was only ended by the strong hand of Cromwell, who
undertook to establish order in Ireland. The “crowd of Geneva”
were accordingly established in the College; but justice must
admit that Henry Cromwell as Chancellor, and Winter as Provost,
behaved with good sense and zeal in promoting the interests of
learning. They, of course, pressed home their doctrines upon the
students; Winter called to the College zealous controversialists
of distinguished piety;[43] private Christian meetings among the
students were encouraged rather than official Chapels. Such of the
former officers as acquiesced in these things--the Vice-Chancellor
Henry Jones, who dropped his title of Bishop, and Stearne the
physician--were continued for the sake of their learning. The care
of outward neatness appears from the entries forbidding linen to
be dried in the courts; they had washed it there long enough. The
Provost undertook several journeys to the remote parts of Ireland,
to recover the abandoned properties and collect the rents of the
College. To the Commonwealth, moreover, is due the foundation
(1652) of the School of Mathematics, which has since become so
famous. This initial step was advanced by the bequest of Lord
Donegal (1660), whose Lecturership is still known by his name.
When the Restoration supervened, Winter and his intimates were
expelled as intruders, and a new governing body and scholars
appointed. But as Cromwell had taken care to keep up the traditions
of the College by continuing some of the previous Fellows, so the
Government of Charles II. reappointed several men who had stood by
the College all through the interregnum, and saved the continuity
of its teaching. Above all, the framers of the well-known Act of
Settlement took special care of the College, securing to it all
the estates to which it had a claim, and even endowing the Provost
with charges upon forfeited lands in the Archbishopric of Dublin.
Provisions were made for the founding of a second College under
the University; presently Dr. Stearne obtained a Charter for the
College of Physicians at Trinity Hall, close to the Green, in
connection with the College. Ussher’s books, which were still
lying in Dublin Castle, though long since purchased by Cromwell’s
soldiers for the College, were now formally handed over to it; and
in every way its interests were fostered and promoted. The Duke of
Ormonde as Lord Deputy, and also as Chancellor of the University,
and Bishop Jeremy Taylor as Vice-Chancellor, may be regarded as the
main movers in this policy; whether other secret influences were
at work I have not been able to ascertain.[44] How firm and wise
a friend of the College Ormonde was, appears from the following
protest he made to the then Secretary of State. An Englishman had
just been nominated to an Irish bishopric. “It is fit that it
should be remembered that near this city there is an University
of the foundation of Queen Elizabeth, principally intended for
the education and advantage of the natives of this kingdom, which
hath produced men very eminent for learning and piety, and those
of this nation, and such there are in the Church: so that, while
there are such, the passing them by is not only, in some measure,
a violation of the original intention and institution, but a great
discouragement to the natives from making themselves capable
and fit for preferment in the Church, whereunto, if they have
equal parts, they are better able to do service than strangers;
their knowledge of the country and relations in it giving them
the advantage. The promotion, too, of the already dignified or
beneficed will make room for, and consequently encourage, students
in the University, which room will be lost, and the inferior clergy
much disheartened, if, upon the vacancy of bishopricks, persons
unknown to the kingdom and University shall be sent to fill them,
and be less useful there to Church and kingdom than those who are
better acquainted with them.”[45] The scandalous policy of setting
obscure and careless Englishmen to govern competent Irishmen,
which reached its climax under Primate Boulter’s influence, has
now veered round so completely that there is an outcry if an
incompetent Irishman is not preferred to any Englishman, however
competent. Both extremes lead to the same mischief--estrangement in
sentiment from England, and in consequence narrow provincialism,
which lowers the standard to be expected in important posts, by
selecting the best local man, instead of the best man in Great
Britain and Ireland, or even (for scientific appointments) in
Europe.
But though the College was thus secured in ultimate material
prosperity, there was for some years great difficulty in realising
property, and we find elections postponed for want of funds in 1664
and 1666. A Fellow, William Leckey, was executed in Dublin for
participation in the plot of 1663 against the King. Still worse,
we still find in what Jeremy Taylor describes as “the little, but
excellent University of Dublin,”[46] great poverty in profound
scholarship. Two eminent men had indeed come out of Trinity College
in this generation. Dudley Loftus and Henry Dodwell were second to
none of their contemporaries in learning. Dodwell was offered a
Chair at Oxford solely upon his general reputation. The catalogue
of his and Loftus’ extant works is still astonishing. Loftus
combined in him the blood of the talented adventurer Adam Loftus
with the far sounder blood of the Usshers.[47] But these men would
not or could not be Provosts--so that high office fell to such men
as Seele, the son of a verger at Christ Church, esteemed highly by
his contemporaries,[48] and Ward, who was of the old Loftus type,
having come over from England, and obtained five great promotions,
ending with the See of Derry, in which he died, at the age of 39!
No wonder that clever lads sought their fortune in Ireland. Ward
“was esteemed a person of fine conversation and of great sagacity
in dextrously managing proper conjunctures, to which qualities his
rise to so many preferments in so short a time was ascribed.”[49]
It was a very great improvement, and of great service to the
College, when the Duke of Ormonde reverted again to Oxford, and
brought over as Provost Narcissus Marsh, whose Library at S.
Sepulchre’s still attests the learning and wide interests of the
man. Like every Provost in those days, he was promptly advanced to
the Episcopal Bench; the College then afforded a stepping-stone
to the episcopal as it now does to the judicial Bench; and if its
rulers are now usually very old, they were then very young. Marsh
was only five years Provost before his promotion, and yet even in
that short time he produced a lasting effect upon the College. What
would such a man have accomplished in a lifetime of enlightened
government! But he was essentially a student, and the duties of the
Provost were not then, as they now are, compatible with a learned
leisure.
January 1678/9.--Finding the place very troublesome, partly by
reason of the multitude of business and important visits the
Provost is obliged to, and partly by reason of the ill education
that the young scholars have before they come to the College,
whereby they are both rude and ignorant, I was quickly weary of
340 young men and boys in this lewd, debauched town, and the more
so because I had no time to follow my dearly beloved studies.[50]
I have already noted that this enterprising Englishman was bent on
promoting the study of the Irish language. Let me quote what Dr.
Stubbs says--
“Among the Smith MSS. in the Bodleian Library is preserved a
letter[51] from Marsh when Primate, in which he gives some
account of the condition of the College during his residence as
Provost. He was particularly anxious, as he states, that the
thirty Irish-born Scholars, who then enjoyed salaries equal to
those of the Junior Fellows, should be thoroughly trained to
speak and write the Irish language. He desired that these should
be a body from which the parochial clergy of Ireland might be
recruited, in order that the people should have the ministrations
of religion in their own language. The majority of the Natives
knew nothing of the grammar of the language, and could make
no attempt to read it, or to write it. In order to counteract
this ignorance, Marsh determined that he would not elect to
a native’s place any scholar who was not ready to learn the
Irish language thoroughly, and that he would not allow them to
retain their places unless they made satisfactory progress. To
enable them to do this, he employed a converted Roman Catholic
priest, Paul Higgins, who was a good Irish scholar, and who had
been admitted as a clergyman of the Irish Church, to reside
in his house, and to give instruction to the Scholars of the
College,[52] at a salary of £16 a-year and his board. He had also
the Church Service read in Irish, and an Irish sermon preached by
Higgins in the College Chapel on one Sunday afternoon in every
month, at 3 P.M. These services seem to have been open to the
public; and we learn from Marsh’s letters that the ancient Chapel
was crowded by hearers on the occasion of the Irish sermons,
the congregation numbering as many as three hundred. We have no
record of the continuance of these Irish services after Marsh
ceased to be Provost.”
He also promoted the study of mathematics, hitherto of little
moment in the College. He founded a Philosophical Society, as
a sort of offshoot of the Royal Society of London, to which
he contributed a learned paper on Musical Sounds. The curious
collection of ancient music still extant in his Library (bequeathed
for the use of the City of Dublin, but mainly intended for a
Diocesan Library) shows that he had a special interest in this
subject. He wrote for the students a sensible text-book of Logic
(_see fac-simile of title-page, p. 37_). He got a new and larger
Chapel built, which lasted till 1798. But he was still in the era
when the College authorities had no idea of building ornamentally.
The houses and halls were merely modest constructions for use, and
Dr. Campbell is quoted as describing them:--
The Chapel is as mean a structure as you can conceive; destitute
of monumental decoration within; it is no better than a
Welsh Church without. The old Hall, where College exercises
are performed, is in the same range, and built in the same
style.--_Op. cit._ p. 117.
This is, I think, to be said of all the buildings in Dublin during
the seventeenth century. So far as I know, the earliest, and
perhaps the best attempt at artistic architecture is the Library,
which was not commenced till 1709.[53] All the handsome houses in
Dublin date from after the middle of the eighteenth century.
[Illustration: FAC-SIMILE OF TITLE-PAGE, ARCHBISHOP MARSH’S “LOGIC.”
Institutiones LOGICÆ.
IN USUM JUVENTUTIS ACADEMICÆ DUBLINIENSIS.
DUBLINI, Apud S. HELSHAM ad _Insignia Collegii_,
in vico vulgò dicto _Castle-street_. 1681.]
When Marsh was promoted--he became ultimately Archbishop of
Dublin and then Primate--Ormonde, the Chancellor, chose another
Orientalist, Huntingdon of Merton College, to succeed him. But he
was by no means so able a man; he came over with great reluctance
(1686), and immediately decamped upon the outbreak of the second
great tumult, which turned out even worse for the College than
1641--the Revolution under James II., and the war which was only
concluded by William’s victory at the Boyne. The Revolution was
a sore blow for the College, which was now rapidly rising both
in wealth and in intellectual position. The Senior Fellows did
all they could to conciliate James II., without, however, denying
their own Protestant character. The King, a weak man, gave them
civil words; but they had to deal with his advisers, who varied
widely in their aims and hopes from those of moderate men. The Acts
passed by the brief Parliament of James II. have been recently
brought into clear light by historians,[54] and the only wonder to
be explained is the escape of the College from the secret Bill of
Attainder which was to affect the liberties and properties of all
Protestants, and from which not even the power of the Crown could
grant remission. The anecdote how the members for the University
kept out of the way, or sent the College butler out of the way,[55]
and managed to have the College names omitted, seems to be a
romance invented to explain an accidental omission, and to gain
credit for some worthy people who did not fly to England or betray
their public trust.
The first acts of aggression were demands to appoint creatures of
Tyrconnell’s either to an Irish Lecturership which did not exist,
or to Junior Fellowships, which required an oath of allegiance to
the Crown and of adherence to the Church of England, as ordered
by Charles II. in his _Act of Uniformity_. The Crown had been
in the habit of appointing Fellows by mandamus, so that this
proceeding was not so high-handed as it would be now-a-days. But
the plain intention of James II.’s advisers, and especially of
Tyrconnell, the Lord Deputy, was to force Roman Catholics into
power and to dispossess Protestant interests. It is to the credit
of the adventurers sent down to the College by Tyrconnell that
they objected to take the oath. The Lord Deputy then stopped the
Concordatum Fund of £400 a-year. It was a moment when the College
so clearly felt its increasing numbers, that there was a proposal
to sell some of the fast-accumulating plate to find funds in aid
of new buildings. Apart from gifts made by the parents of pupils,
there was a charge at matriculation for _argent_, as there still
is in some Colleges at Oxford, and it seems to have been thought a
convenient way of laying by money which could be easily realised
in times of danger. How fast this plate had accumulated since the
disasters of 1641 may be inferred from the fact that the College
actually embarked 3,990 ounces of silver to be sent to London (7th
February, 1687). On the 12th, Tyrconnell was sworn in Lord Deputy,
and had the plate seized. The College reclaimed it, and ultimately
recovered it on condition of laying out the money in the purchase
of land. It seems to have brought 5s. per ounce, and is said to
have been “profitably” invested. If the College now possessed it,
the money value would not be less than £5 per ounce; its value in
adding dignity to the establishment is not easily estimable. As Dr.
Stubbs says, the succeeding events are best told from the College
Register, which he quotes:--
_January 9, 1688/9._--The College stock being very low, and there
being little hopes of the coming in of the rents, the following
retrenchment of the College expenses was agreed upon by the
Vice-Provost and Senior Fellows.
_January 24, 1688/9._--The Visitors of the College did approve
of the said retrenchment, which is as follows:--Ordered by
the Vice-Provost and Senior Fellows, because the College is
reduced to a low condition by the infelicity of the times (no
tenants paying any rents, and at present our stock being almost
exhausted), it was ordered that there should be a retrenchment of
our expenses according to the model following; the approbation of
our Visitors being first obtained:--
_Inp._--That there shall be but one meal a-day in the Hall, and
that a dinner, because the supper is the more expensive meal by
reason of coals, &c. 2. That every Fellow be allowed but three
pence in the Kitchen per diem, and one penny in the Buttery.
3. That the Scholars be allowed their full allowance according
to the Statutes, but after this manner, viz.:--To each Scholar
in the Kitchen two pence per diem, except on Friday, on which
but three half pence. To each Scholar in the Buttery his usuall
allowance, which was one penny half penny per diem. To each
Scholar at night shall be allowed out of the Buttery one half
penny in cheese or butter, except on Friday night, and that will
compleat the Statute allowance. 4. That whereas the Statute
allowance to each Fellow in Buttery and Kitchen is five shillings
and three pence per week, and the present allowance comes but
to two shillings and four pence, therefore it is ordered that
whenever the College is able, the first payments shall be made to
the Fellows to compleat their Statute allowance in Commons. All
these clauses above mentioned are to be understood in relation to
those that are resident. And if it shall happen that the Society
shall be forc’t to break up, and quit the place through extreme
necessity, or any publick calamity, that then all members of the
said Society shall for the interim have full title and claim to
all profits and allowances in their severall stations and offices
respectively, when it shall please God to bring about a happy
restoration. 5. That proportionable deductions be made from what
was formerly allow’d to the Cooks for decrements, furzes, &c. 6.
That the additional charge of Saturday’s dinners be laid aside.
7. That for the future no Scholar of the House be allow’d Commons
that is indebted to his Tutor, and that no Master of Arts, Fellow
Commoner, or Pensioner, be kept in Commons that has not deposited
sufficient caution money in the Bursar’s hands. 8. That whereas
we are resolved to keep up the Society as long as possibly we
can, therefore ’tis ordered that as soon as the College money
shall fail, all the plate now in our custody be sold or pawned
to defray the charges above mentioned. We, the Visitors of the
College above mentioned, having considered the expediency of the
above retrenchment, do allow and approve thereof.
FRANCIS DUBLIN. DIVE DOWNES.
ANT. MEATH. JOHN BARTON.
RICHARD ACTON, _Vice-Provost_. BEN. SCROGGS.
GEORGE BROWN.
_January 24, 1688/9._--It was agreed upon by the Vice-Provost and
Senior Fellows that the Manuscripts in the Library, the Patents,
and other writings belonging to the College, be transported into
England. At the same time it was resolved that the remainder
of the plate should be immediately sold, excepting the Chappel
Plate. The same day the College waited on the Lord Deputy, and
desired leave to transport the remainder of their plate into
England, because they could not sell it here without great loss.
The Lord Deputy refused leave.
_February 19, 1688/9._--It was agreed on by the Vice-Provost
and Senior Fellows that two hundred pounds of the College money
should be sent into England for the support of those Fellows that
should be forc’t to fly thither. At the same time the dangers
of staying in the College seemed so great that it was judged
reasonable that all those that thought fit to withdraw themselves
from the College for their better security might have free
liberty so to do.
_February 25, 1688/9._--All the Horse, Foot, and Dragoons,
were drawn out and posted at severall places in the town, from
whence they sent parties, who searcht the Protestant houses for
arms, whilst others were employed in breaking into stables and
taking away all their horses. Two Companies of Foot, commanded
by Talbot, one of the Captains in the Royal Regiment of Foot
Guards, came into the College, searcht all places, and took away
those few fusils, swords, and pistols, that they found. At the
same time a party of Dragoons broke open the College stables
and took away all the horses. The Foot continued in the College
all night; the next day they were drawn off. On the same day it
was agreed on by the Vice-Provost and Senior Fellows that the
Fellows and Scholars should receive out of the College trunk (the
two hundred pounds not being sent into England as was design’d)
their salaries for their respective Fellowships, Offices, and
Scholarships, which will be due at the end of this current
quarter, together with their allowance for Commons for the said
quarter.
_March 1, 1688/9._--Dr. Browne, Mr. Downes, Mr. Barton, Mr. Ashe,
and Mr. Smyth, embark’t for England; soon after follow’d Mr.
Scroggs, Mr. Leader, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Sayers, and Mr. Hasset. Mr.
Patrickson soon after died; and (of ye Fellows) only Dr. Acton,
Mr. Thewles, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Allen, continued in the College.
_March 12, 1688/9._--King James landed in Ireland; and upon the
24th of the same month, being Palm Sunday, he came to Dublin.
The College, with the Vice-Chancellor, waited upon him, and Mr.
Thewles made a speech, which he seemed to receive kindly, and
promis’d ’em his favour and pretection;[56] [but upon the 16th of
September, 1689, without any offence as much as pretended, the
College was seized on for a garrison by the King’s order, the
Fellows turned out, and a Regiment of Foot took possession and
continued in it.[57]]
_June 13, 1689._--Mr. Arthur Greene having petitioned the
King for a Senior Fellowship, the case was refer’d to Sir
Richard Nagle; upon which he sent an order to the Vice-Provost
and Fellows to meet him at his house on Monday, the 17th, to
shew reason why the aforesaid petition shud not be granted.
The reasons offer’d were many, part of ’em drawn from false
allegations in the petition, part from the petitioner’s
incapacity in several respects to execute the duty of a Senior
Fellow; and the conclusion was in these words: There are much
more important reasons drawn, as well from the Statutes relating
to religion, as from the obligation of oaths which we have
taken, and the interests of our religion, which we will never
desert, that render it wholly impossible, without violating our
consciences, to have any concurrence, or to be any way concerned,
in the admission of him.
_July 24._--The Vice-Provost and Fellows, with consent of the
Vice-Chancellor, sold a peece of plate weighing about 30 ounces
for subsistence of themselves and the Scholars that remained.
_September 6._--The College was seized on for a Garrison by the
King’s order, and Sir John Fitzgerald took possession of it. Upon
Wednesday the 11th, it was made a prison for the Protestants of
the City, of whom a great number were confined to the upper part
of the Hall. Upon the 16th the Scholars were all turned out by
souldiers, and ordered to carry nothing with ’em but their books.
But Mr. Thewles and some others were not permitted to take their
books with ’em. Lenan, one of the Scholars of the House, was sick
of the small-pox, and died, as it was supposed, by removing. At
the same time the King sent an order to apprehend six of the
Fellows and Masters, and commit ’em to the main guard, and all
this without any provocation or crime as much as pretended; but
the Bishop of Meath, our Vice-Chancellor, interceded with the
King, and procured the last order to be stopt.
_September 28._--The Chappel-plate and the Mace were seized on
and taken away. The plate was sent to the Custom-house by Colonel
Lutterel’s order; but it was preserved by Mr. Collins, one of the
Commissioners of the Revenue.
_October 21._--Several persons, by order of the Government,
seized upon the Chappel and broke open the Library. The Chappel
was sprinkled and new consecrated and Mass was said in it; but
afterwards being turned into a storehouse for powder, it escaped
all further damage. The Library and Gardens and the Provost’s
lodgings were committed to the care of one Macarty, a Priest and
Chaplain to ye King, who preserved ’em from the violence of the
souldiers, but the Chambers and all other things belonging to ye
College were miserably defaced and ruined.[58]
We find in the _Dublin Magazine_ for August, 1762, p. 54, the
following petition of the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland,
which was probably presented to James II. at this time:--
“HUMBLY SHEWETH
“That the Royal College of Dublin is the only University of this
Kingdom, and now wholly at your Majesty’s disposal, the teachers
and scholars having deserted it.
“That before the Reformation it was common to all the natives of
this country, as the other most famous Universities of Europe
to theirs, respectively, and the ablest Scholars of this Nation
preferred to be professors and teachers therein, without any
distinction of orders, congregations, or politic bodies, other
than that of true merit, as the competent judges of learning and
piety, after a careful and just scrutiny did approve.
“That your petitioners being bred in foreign Colleges and
Universities, and acquainted with many of this Nation, who in the
said Universities purchased the credit and renown of very able
men in learning, do humbly conceive themselves to be qualified
for being competent and proper judges of the fittest to be
impartially presented to your Majesty, and employed as such
directors and teachers (whether secular or regular clergymen) as
may best deserve it, which as is the practice of other Catholic
Universities, so it will undoubtedly prove a great encouragement
to learning, and very advantageous to this Nation, entirely
devoted to your Majesty’s interest.
“Your petitioners therefore do most humbly pray that your Majesty
may be graciously pleased to let your Irish Catholic subjects
make use of the said College for the instruction of their youth,
and that it may be a general Seminary for the clergy of this
Kingdom, and that either all the bishops, or such of them as your
Majesty will think fit (by your Royal authority and commission),
present the most deserving persons to be directors and teachers
in the said College, and to oversee it, to the end it may be well
ruled and truly governed, and pure orthodox doctrine, piety and
virtue be taught and practised therein, to the honour and glory
of God, propagation of his true religion, and general good of
your Majesty’s subjects in this realm, and as in duty bound they
will ever pray,” &c.
And the following petition from the heads of the College appears
upon the Register:--
“TO THE KING’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.
“THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE VICE-PROVOST, FELLOWS, AND SCHOLARS OF
TRINITY COLLEGE, NEAR DUBLIN,
“HUMBLY SHEWETH
“That your Petitioners have continued in the College under your
Majesty’s most gracious protection, acting pursuant to the
Statutes and Charters granted by your Majesty’s Royal Father
and others your Royal Ancestors, And during your Majesty’s
absence upon the 6th day of September last, by orders pretended
to be derived from your Majesty, Guards were placed in the said
College, That upon ye 16th of ye said month Sir John Fitzgerald
came with a great body of armed men, and forceably dispossest
your Petitioners, and not only dis-seized them of their tenure
and freehold, but also seized on the private goods of many
of your Petitioners, to their great damage and the ruin and
destruction of that place; that upon the 28th of the said month,
under pretence for a search for arms, seizure was made by one
Hogan of the Sacred Chalices and other holy vessels belonging to
ye Altar of the Chappel, and also of the Mace; that upon the 21st
of October several persons pretending orders from the Government
broke open the door of the Library, and possest themselves of
the Chappel: by all which proceedings your Petitioners conceive
themselves totally ejected out of their freehold, and despoiled
of their propertyes and goods, contrary to your Majesty’s laws,
tho’ your Petitioners have acted nothing against their duty
either as subjects or members of ye College. May it therefore
please,” &c.
_November 20, 1689._--The Vice-Provost and Fellows met together
and elected the same officers that were chosen the year before.
Facta est hæc Electio a Vice Præposito et Sociis Junioribus
locum Sociorum Seniorum supplentibus, quam Præposito et Sociis
Senioribus (cum conveniat) vel confirmandam, vel irritam
reddendam reliquimus. R. Acton, G. Thewles, Js. Hall, J. Allen.
_December._--About the beginning of this month Dr. Acton died of
a fever.
At the Court at Dublin Castle, April 11th, 1690. Present the
King’s Most Excellent Majestie in Council.
“Whereas His Majestie has been gratiously pleased to appoint
the Right Honorable the L^d High Chancellor of Ireland to visit
and view Trinity College, near Dublin, and the Records and
Library thereunto belonging, and whereas his Majestie is given
to understand this day in Council that Mr. George Thewles and
Mr. John Hall have several Keyes belonging to ye said College in
their custody, and refuse to deliver the same to his Lordship in
order to view the said College records and Library; his Majestie
is gratiously pleased to order, and doth hereby order the said
Mr. George Thewles and John Hall, or either of them, forthwith to
deliver the said Keyes to the L^d High Chancellor, as they shall
answer the same at their peril.
“HUGH REILY, _Copia Vera_.”
Upon receipt of this Mr. Thewles and Mr. Hall consulted the
Vice-Chancellor and delivered the Keyes.
_April 15, 1690._--Received from Mr. George Thewles and Mr. John
Hall, by his Majesties order in Council, ten Keyes belonging to
the trunks and presses in the repository of ye College of Dublin
by me.
FYTTON, _C._
_June 14, 1690._--King William landed at Carrick Fergus, and the
same day Mr. Thewles died of a fever.
_July 1, 1690._--The armies of the English and Irish engaged at
the Boyne, and the Irish being routed, King James returned that
night to Dublin, and commanded his army not to plunder or do any
harm to the city, which order was observed by ye Irish.
_July 15, 1690._--Mr. Scroggs landed, and immediately after Dr.
Browne, and then Mr. Downes, Mr. Reader, the Provost, &c.[59]
The Fellows and Scholars that returned were allowed their
Commons, but their salary was reduced by agreement to the old
Statute allowance, both for Fellowships and places, till the
College revenues shall increase.
Before King William left Ireland he gave order to ye College to
seize upon all books that belonged to forfeiting Papists; but the
order not being known till about half a-year after, the greatest
part of the books were lost, but those which were recovered, and
worth anything, were placed in the Countess of Bath’s library.[60]
The interesting features in this crisis were, first, the steadfast
and courageous behaviour of Dr. Acton and his three colleagues,
two of whom sacrificed their lives for the good of the College;
secondly, the excellent conduct of the two Roman Catholic priests,
Moore and Macarthy, who not only exerted themselves with great
humanity to save the Fellows and scholars and their property
from outrage, but showed a real love and respect for learning,
and a desire to maintain the College for the real objects of its
foundation.[61] Thus, if it had not been for the narrowness of
controversialists and the violence of soldiers, the assaults of
Rome and Geneva were by no means so disastrous as might have been
expected. Nevertheless, the College came out of the crisis of
James II. with great loss of books, furniture, plate, rents--in
fact, for the moment in great distress--but still the buildings
were safe;[62] the character of the College must have been greatly
raised by the conduct of its Fellows; there had been no time to
occupy the estates with new adventurers; and the policy of the
new King, in spite of his well-known Liberal instincts, must
necessarily be strongly Protestant after the recent outburst of the
opposite party under his opponent, and therefore made him a firm
friend of the persecuted College.
[Illustration: CHAPEL PLATE. (DATED 1632 AND 1638).]
Before closing this chapter, we may say a word upon the changing
aspect of the College and its surroundings, especially College
Green. The foundation of the College soon brought with it a desire
to build houses in its neighbourhood. But in Bedell’s diary we find
that the first permission given by the Corporation to build houses
close to the gate was frustrated by the students raiding upon
the works, and carrying the building-plant into the College. The
builder, indeed, recovered it by the interference of the Provost,
but whether the building proceeded is doubtful. Still, we hear of
Archbishop Ussher lodging in College Green in 1632, a very few
years after; and a lodging fit for the Primate can have been no
mean dwelling. There were several sites granted on the north side
of Dame Street by the Corporation to gentlemen of quality, who
built houses, with gardens stretching behind them to the river. I
have found mention of three of these before 1640. Presently two
larger mansions were erected there--Clancarty House, at the foot
of the present S. Andrew’s Street, and opposite it Chichester
House, always a large mansion, often used for Courts, and even
Parliaments, till the present remarkable building was set upon its
site. It was one of the objections urged in 1668 to Trinity Hall
(the site of the present S. Andrew’s Church) for holding students,
that they could not hear the College bell owing to the number of
intervening houses. Thus Dublin must have been rapidly growing
out in this direction.[63] There are houses in Dawson Street and
Molesworth Street whose gables show them to belong to the 17th
century. So likewise in the streets off South Great George’s Street
there are still many houses which bear the clear character of
Dublin building from 1660 to 1700. All the churches were remodelled
or rebuilt in the end of this or in the succeeding century. But,
as I have already said, there was as yet no thought of stately or
ornamental house architecture. The existing blocks of that date
in Trinity College (Nos. 22-31) show what was accomplished, and
though far better than the buildings of “Botany Bay,” which came
a century later, are nevertheless mainly interesting from their
date as marking an epoch in this History. There is no hint that the
other lodgings for students, since taken down, were in any sense
ornamental.
I turn, in concluding this chapter, to the interesting question
of the recognition of sports and games among the students--a
recognition which reached its climax under Provost Hutchinson. The
following passage gives us some facts and dates:--
There does not appear to have been any arrangement for the
recreation of the Students inside the College until 1684, when
we find the following entry on August 13:--“The ground for the
Bowling-green was granted, and the last Commencement supper fees
were allowed towards the making of it.” The bowling-green, which
was near the present gymnasium and racquet-court, and probably
on the site of the existing [lawn] tennis-courts, was maintained
until early in this century, and a portion of the entrance fees
of Fellow Commoners was applied to maintain it. On July 28, 1694,
leave was given to build a fives-court at the east end of the
Fellows’ garden. In Brooking’s map of Dublin there appears to
have been, in 1728, a quadrangular walled-in court on the site of
the present New Square, for the recreation of the Students. There
were two gates giving access to this in the arches under numbers
23 and 25 in the Library Square, which is the oldest existing
part of the College, and which was erected after [about] 1700. As
the Students were prohibited from going out into the city without
leave, it was obviously necessary that opportunities should be
given for out-door amusements within the bounds; and the College
Park had not been at this time laid out and planted. A number of
small paddocks occupied at this period the site of the present
Park; and the College Park, as we have it now, was first formed
and planted with trees in 1722.[64]
Some comment upon this passage seems desirable. In the Elizabethan
and Jacobean College recreations for the students were not only
ignored but forbidden. Young men came there and were maintained
at the expense of the Institution, not to play, but to work, as
I have above explained. This strictly theological notion was now
giving way to a secular aspect of things, which tolerated the
residence of students in the city,[65] and received wealthy young
men, who came to spend, not to earn money. The facts just quoted
are therefore interesting in showing that this change of spirit was
now accomplished. For in colleges outward acts follow slowly upon
new convictions.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter ending)]
FOOTNOTES:
[38] At the moment that Sir William Brereton visited Dublin (July,
1635), the College and Church of the Jesuits in Back Lane, with its
carved pulpit and high altar, had lately (1633) been annexed to
Trinity College, and lectures were held there every Tuesday, Lord
Corke paying for the Lecturer. Brereton also saw a cloister and
Chapel of the Capuchins, which had been turned into S. Stephen’s
Hall, in which 18 scholars of the College were then accommodated.
It is remarkable that all attempts, whether promoted by the College
or not, to shape the University of Trinity College according to the
peculiar model of Oxford and Cambridge have failed.
[39] It is, indeed, rehearsed with great care in these Statutes
that they are approved of by the Provost and Fellows, and imposed
with their consent; but that consent was extorted by interfering
with the appointment of Provost, and choosing Chappel to carry out
the new policy.
[40] He was Milton’s College Tutor, and is said to be the Damœtas
in _Lycidas_. All the histories tell the anecdote of his pressing
his adversary in a public disputation at Cambridge so keenly that
the unfortunate man swooned in the pulpit, when King James, who
was present, took up the argument, and presently confessed himself
worsted. This kind of subtlety may have enabled him to reconcile
his various breaches of statute with his sworn obligations. His
holding of the Bishopric and Provostship together was, however,
openly sanctioned by Laud. His Latin autobiography gives us a
picture quite inconsistent with the complaints of the Fellows and
the resolutions of the Irish Parliament against him. It is a string
of pious lamentations, _e.g._--
“Jam quindecim annos corpus vix ægrum traho
Estque jubilæum hic annus ætatis meæ.
* * * * *
Subinde climactera nova vitæ meæ
Incipit et excutit reliquias dentium
Ante putrium, monetque mortis sim memor.”
[41] Martin seems to have been the best of the early Provosts. But
he had special qualifications, being a Galway man, educated first
in France, then at Cambridge, and then appointed a Fellow of the
College, by competition, in 1610. Thus he added to his Irish blood
and knowledge of the country a wide and various experience. But
the terrible insurrection which swept over the land made these
qualities of little import beside his moral strength. When driven
from his Diocese of Meath, he was made temporary Provost, according
to the petition of the Fellows, who found fault with Faithful
Tate (Stubbs, appendix). He suffered further persecution from
the Parliamentary Commissioners, but through all his adversities
maintained the same constancy. “Is est qualis alii tantum videri
volunt, et in humaniori literatura, et in vitæ integritate
germanissimus, certe Nathaniel sine fraude.”--Taylor, p. 238.
[42] The reader will be glad to see the text of this document,
which I have copied from the original in Lord Ormonde’s
possession:--
“CUM PER MORTEM Reverendissimi in Christo Patris Guilielmi nup.
Archiepi
“Cantuariensis et totius Angliæ primatis Dubliniensis nostra
Academia Cancellarii necessario et nobili præsidio immature
“Sit orbata: nos Anthonius providentia divina Midensis E[=pus]
Præpositus, et Socii Seniores Collegii [=sctæ] et individuæ
“Trinitatis Reginæ Elizabethæ juxta Dublin, secundum licentiam et
potestatem nobis per Chartam fundationis
“Concessam, Honoratissimum Dominum, Dominum Jacobum Marchionem
Ormoniæ, Comitem Ormoniæ et Ossoriæ, Vice-Comitem Thurles, Baronem
de
“Arcloe, Dūm Locumtenentem, et generalem Gubernatorem Regni
H[=ibni]æ et Regiæ Majestati a secretioribus conciliis, Virum
“Nunquam satis laudatum, de quo quicquid in laudem dicitur,
infra meritum dicitur, Virum spectatæ integritatis et fidei erga
principem et
“Patriam veræ Religionis acerrimum Vindicem, Literarum et
Literatorum Mæcenatem amplissimum et de nobis imprimis et Collegio
[=nso] in hisce
“Temporis angustiis optime meritum, quippe qui nos, et res nostras
ad ruinam inclinantes adjutrice manu sustinuit, et ab internecione
et
“Interitu sæpius vindicavit, ut antehac dignissimum semper
censuimus, qui ad Clavem Academiæ sederet, ita nunc Academiæ p’dictæ
“Cancellarium junctis Suffragiis et Calculis eligimus, nominamus,
et admittimus, Hancque dictionem nominationem et admissionem
“Subscriptis nominibus et communi Sigillo, et per litt p’ntes
confirmamus. Datum e Collegio nostro duodecimo die Martii, Anno
Dni. millesimo
“Sexcentesimo quadragesimo quarto.
“THO: SEELE. ANT: MIDENSIS, JO: KERDIFF.
“GUL. RAYMOND. Coll: p^{r.} p^{o.} THO: LOCKE. JA: BISHOPP.”
There is appended the common seal--viz., on thick red wax the
College Arms as usual, but with towers domed and flagged, each
flag blowing outwards, the harp much larger than usual, and shield
surrounded by an oval, and round it the usual legend, with APRILL
added, and the date (1612) in the space over the shield. See page
11 for seal, with some of the signatures of the Senior Fellows.
Three of them who had been driven from their livings had petitioned
the Lord Deputy to be restored to their Senior Fellowships, and
accordingly now show their gratitude. Seele was afterwards Provost.
[43] Several are mentioned by Dr. Stubbs, _op. cit._ p. 95.
[44] As regards the estates, _cf._ Stubbs, p. 111. I add the copy
of the appointment of Jeremy Taylor by Ormonde, preserved among
the Ormonde MSS.:--“To all Xian people to whom these presents
shall come, greeting. Know yee that I James Marquis of Ormonde
Earle of Ormond Ossory and Brecknock Visct Thurles Lord Baron of
Arcloe and Lanthony Lord of the Regalities and Libertyes of the
County of Tiperary one of the Lords of his Ma^{ties} most Hon^{ble}
privy Councell of both Kingdoms of England and Ireland Lord [&c.,
&c.] and Chancellor of the University of Dublyn considering the
great learning the eminent Piety and the exemplary good life and
conversacon of the Reverend Father in God Jeremy Taylour Doctor of
Divinity and now Lord Bpp Elect of the United Bishoprick of Downe
and Connor and his wisdome ability and experience in manageing and
governing all affaires incident to the office of a Vice-Chancellor
of an university and necessary for the advancement of Piety and
Learning doe therefore hereby nominate constitute and appoint the
said Reverend Father in God Doctor Jeremy Taylour Vice-Chancellor
of the University aforesaid and doe by these presents authorize him
to doe execute & performe all such act & acts Thing and Thinges
& to exercise such powers & authorityes & to receive all such
proffitts & benefitts as to the said office of Vice-Chancellor
appertaineth & that as fully amply and beneficially to all intents
& purposes as any person or persons formerly holding or exercising
the said office of Vice-Chauncellor held enjoyed or exercised,
or ought to have held enjoyed or exercised the same. In witness
whereof I have to these presents sett my hand and fixed my seall
the one & thirtieth day of August in the yeare of our Lord God 1660
& in the twelfth year of the Rainn of our Soveraine Lord Charles
the 2^{nd} by the Grace [&c.].--ORMONDE.”
[45] Taylor’s _History_, p. 43.
[46] Preface to the London edition of his University Sermon, 1661.
[47] _Cf._ the interesting article on this eminent man by Professor
G. Stokes in the _Jour. R. S. of Antiq., Ireland, for 1890_, pp.
17, _seq._
[48] In the MS. preserved at Armagh, containing an account of Adam
Loftus’ eloquence on the subject of Trinity College, the writer,
who lived about the centenary of its foundation, says (p. 227)--“Of
the old structure there remains no more than the steeple, which
belonged to that said monastery [All Hallowes] which was lately
restored and beautified under the Government of Thomas Seele, late
Provost of this Colledge.” Seele began the enlargements of the
College, which succeeded one another rapidly for the next century
and a-half.
[49] Harris’ _Ware_. Loftus was made Archbishop of Armagh at the
age of 28!
[50] In his MS. autobiography, preserved in his Library. For an
interesting account of Archbishop Marsh, see _Christian Examiner_,
vol. xi., p. 647. 1831. The ill education of the young scholars
has again become a grave difficulty in Trinity College, since the
establishment of the so-called system of Intermediate Education.
The old hedge-school masters sent us better pupils.
[51] Printed in the _Christian Examiner_, vol. ii., p. 762, 2nd
series (1833).
[52] Bishop Dopping, in his letter to the Hon. Robert Boyle
(Boyle’s _Life and Correspondence_, vol. i.), gives an interesting
account of these classes, at which he states Fellows and Students
attended to the number of eighty, and that they, following the
Provost’s example, made considerable progress in the Irish language.
[53] Dunton speaks of it in 1699 as about to be built. The present
Royal Hospital at Kilmainham is the oldest secular building of any
importance about Dublin. It was finished shortly before 1700, when
it must have been quite unique.
[54] _e.g._, Mr. Dunbar Ingram.
[55] It may be read in Taylor’s History (pp. 55, _seq._) or in Dr.
Stubbs’, who gives Archbishop King as the original authority. Mr.
Heron tells us that one of these members was a Roman Catholic.
[56] “He promised that he would preserve them in their liberties
and properties, and rather augment than diminish the privileges
and immunities granted to them by his predecessors.”--Abp. King’s
_State of Protestants_, sec. lxxix.
[57] This entry must have been made subsequently and separately.
[58] “Many of the chambers were turned into prisons for
Protestants. The Garrison destroyed the doors, wainscots,
closets, and floors, and damnified it in the building and
furniture of private rooms, to at least the value of two thousand
pounds.”--_King_, sec. lxxix.
[59] This entry requires further verification, for Huntingdon never
resumed the office after his flight, and the new Provost was not
yet appointed. On the piece of plate presented to the College in
1690 he calls himself _nuper Præpositus_, lately Provost.
[60] Stubbs, pp. 127-133.
[61] Moore, who retired to the Continent with James II., was
important enough to be afterwards appointed Rector of the
University of Paris.
[62] Wonderful to relate, the chalices which ran these and other
terrible risks, and the flagons of the same date, figured on p. 44,
escaped, and are still in constant use in the College Chapel. They
will be more fully described in another chapter.
[63] Brereton says in 1635 (_Travels_, p. 144)--“The cittie
of Dublin is extending his boundes and limits very farr, much
additions of buildings are lately made, and some of these very
fair, stately and complete buildings. Every commodity is grown very
dear.”
[64] Stubbs, pp. 144, 145. The author does not explain what the
supper Commencement fees were, nor does he state that some land was
bought by the College to complete the Park.
[65] The proposal to recognise as students those who had
matriculated, but lodged in the city of Dublin, is as old as
Bedell’s time, who favours it. _Cf._ _College Calendar_ for 1833,
Introd., p. xxvi.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]
CHAPTER III.
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY UP TO 1758.
_Nec conclusisti me in manibus inimici: statuisti in loco spatioso
pedes meos_.--PS. XXX. 9.
The great expansion of the College about the time of its first
Centenary seems to have been rather the effect of circumstances
than of a strong and able government. The Provosts were perpetually
being promoted to Bishoprics, and were in any case not very
remarkable men. Nevertheless, the Centenary was celebrated with
great pomp, and in a manner widely different from that which is
now in fashion at such feasts. Almost the whole day was occupied
with various orations in praise of founders or of the studies
of the place. We do not hear that any visitors but the local
grandees of Dublin attended, nor is there any detail concerning the
entertainment of the body, after the weariness inflicted upon the
mind, of the audience. There may possibly be some details still
concealed in the College Register, the publication of which among
our historical records is earnestly to be desired. Dr. Stubbs (pp.
136-8) prints the following:--
In the morning there were the customary prayers in the Chapel and
a sermon.
At 2 p.m., after a musical instrumental performance, an oration
was made by Peter Browne, F.T.C., containing a panegyric in
honour of Queen Elizabeth: “Deus nobis hæc otia fecit.” Dominus
Maude, Fellow Commoner, followed with a Carmen Seculare in Latin
hexameters--
“Aspice venturo lætentur ut omnia seclo
... sequitur ramis insignis olivæ.”
Then Benjamin Pratt, F.T.C., followed with praise of King James
the First: “Munificentissimi Academiæ auctoris;” “pariter pietate
vel armis egregii.”
George Carr, F.T.C., commemorated the Chancellors of the
University during the preceding century--
“Nec nos iterum meminisse pigebit Elissæ.”
Sir Richard Gethinge, Bart., followed with an English poem in
memory of the illustrious founder of the College.
Robert Mossom, F.T.C., delivered a Latin oration in praise of
Charles the First and Charles the Second--
“Heu pietas, heu prisca fides ...
... Amavit nos quoque Daphnis.”
Then followed a recitation of some pastoral verses by Dr. Tighe
and Dr. Denny, Fellow Commoners, bearing upon the revival of the
University by William and Mary--
“Jam fides et pax, et honor pudorque
Priscus, et neglecta redire Virtus
Audet.”
A thanksgiving ode was then sung, accompanied by instrumental
music.
A grateful commemoration of the benefits which the City of Dublin
had conferred upon the University, by Richard Baldwin, F.T.C.--
“Laudabunt alii claram Rhodon aut Mitylenen.”
Verses commemorating the hospitality shown to the members of the
University when dispersed, by the sister Universities of Oxford
and Cambridge, were recited by Benjamin Hawkshaw, B.A., William
Tisdall, B.A., Jeremiah Harrison, B.A.--
“ ... Quales decet esse Sorores.”
Then there was a Latin debate on the subject, “Whether the
Sciences and Arts are more indebted to the Ancients or the
Moderns.”
For the Ancients--Nicholas Foster, B.A.
For the Moderns--Robert Cashin, B.A.
Then followed a “Carmen seculare lyricum,” recited by Anthony
Dopping, son of the Bishop of Meath--
“Alterum in lustrum meliusque semper
... Proroget ævum.”
Concerning the increase of University studies, in a humorous
speech by Thomas Leigh, B.A.
Eugene Lloyd, Proctor of the University, closed the Acts.
A skilled band of musicians followed the procession as they left
the building.
To this Dunton, writing from Dublin in 1699, while the memory of it
was still fresh, adds some curious details--
Leaving Dr. Phœnix’s house, our next visit was to the College of
Dublin, where several worthy gentlemen (both Fellows and others)
had been great benefactors to my auction. When we came to the
College, we went first to my friend Mr. Young’s chamber; but he
not being at home we went to see the Library, which is over the
Scholars’ lodgings, the length of one of the quadrangles, and
contains a great many choice books of great value, particularly
one, the largest I ever saw for breadth; it was an “Herbal,”
containing the lively portraitures of all sorts of trees, plants,
herbs, and flowers. By this “Herbal” lay a small book, containing
about sixty pages in a sheet, to make it look like “the Giant and
the Dwarf.” There also (since I have mentioned a giant) we saw
lying on a table the thigh-bone of a giant, or at least of some
monstrous overgrown man, for the thigh-bone was as long as my
leg and thigh; which is kept there as a convincing demonstration
of the vast bigness which some human bodies have in former
times arrived to. We were next showed by Mr. Griffith, a Master
of Arts (for he it was that showed us these curiosities), the
skin of one Ridley, a notorious Tory, which had been long ago
executed; he had been begged for an anatomy, and, being flayed,
his skin was tanned, and stuffed with straw. In this passive
state he was assaulted with some mice and rats, not sneakingly
behind his back, but boldly before his face, which they so much
further mortified, even after death, as to eat it up; which loss
has since been supplied by tanning the face of one Geoghagan, a
Popish Priest, executed about six years ago for stealing; which
said face is put in the place of Ridley’s.
At the east end of this Library, on the right hand, is a chamber
called “The Countess of Bath’s Library,” filled with many
handsome folios, and other books, in Dutch binding, gilt, with
the Earl’s Arms impressed upon them; for he had been some time of
this house.
On the left hand, opposite to this room, is another chamber,
in which I saw a great many manuscripts, medals, and other
curiosities. At the west end of the Library there is a division
made by a kind of wooden lattice-work, containing about thirty
paces, full of choice and curious books, which was the Library
of that great man, Archbishop Ussher, Primate of Armagh, whose
learning and exemplary piety has justly made him the ornament,
not only of that College (of which he was the first scholar that
ever was entered in it, and the first who took degrees), but of
the whole Hibernian nation.
At the upper end of this part of the Library hangs at full length
the picture of Dr. Chaloner,[66] who was the first Provost of
the College, and a person eminent for learning and virtue. His
picture is likewise at the entrance into the Library, and his
body lies in a stately tomb made of alabaster. At the west
end of the Chapel, near Dr. Chaloner’s picture (if I do not
mistake), hangs a new skeleton of a man, made up and given by
Dr. Gwither, a physician of careful and happy practice, of great
integrity, learning, and sound judgment, as may be seen by those
treatises of his that are inserted in some late “Philosophical
Transactions.”
Thus, Madam, have I given you a brief account of the Library,
which at present is but an ordinary pile of building, and cannot
be distinguished on the outside; but I hear they design the
building of a new Library, and, I am told, the House of Commons
in Ireland have voted £3,000 towards carrying it on.[67]
After having seen the Library, we went to visit Mr. Minshull,
whose father I knew in Chester. Mr. Minshull has been student in
the College for some time, and is a very sober, ingenious youth,
and I do think is descended from one of the most courteous men in
Europe; I mean Mr. John Minshull, bookseller in Chester.
After a short stay in this gentleman’s chamber, we were led by
one Theophilus, a good-natured sensible fellow, to see the new
house now building for the Provost, which, when finished, will be
very noble and magnificent.[68] After this, Theophilus showed us
the gardens belonging to the College, which were very pleasant
and entertaining. Here was a sun-dial, on which might be seen
what o’clock it was in most parts of the world.
This dial was placed upon the top of a stone representing a pile
of books; and not far from this was another sun-dial, set in box,
of very large compass, the gnomon of it being very near as big as
a barber’s pole.
Leaving this pleasant garden, we ascended several steps, which
brought us into a curious walk, where we had a prospect to the
west of the city and to the east of the sea and harbour; on the
south we could see the mountains of Wicklow, and on the north the
River Liffey, which runs by the side of the College.
Having now, and at other times, thoroughly surveyed the College,
I shall here attempt to give your Ladyship a very particular
account of it. It is called Trinity College, and is the sole
University of Ireland. It consists of three squares, the outward
being as large as both the inner, one of which, of modern
building, has not chambers on every side; the other has, on the
south side of which stands the Library, the whole length of the
square. I shall say nothing of the Library here (having already
said something of it), so I proceed to tell you, Madam, that
the Hall and Butteries run the same range with the Library, and
separate the two inner squares. It is an old building, as is also
the Regent-house, which from a gallery looks into the Chapel,
which has been of late years enlarged, being before too little
for the number of Scholars, which are now, with the Fellows,
&c., reckoned about 340. They have a garden for the Fellows, and
another for the Provost, both neatly kept, as also a bowling
green, and large parks for the students to walk and exercise
in. The Foundation consists of a Provost (who at present is the
Reverend Dr. George Brown, a gentleman bred in this house since a
youth, when he was first entered, and one in whom they all count
themselves very happy, for he is an excellent governor, and a
person of great piety, learning, and moderation), seven Senior
Fellows, of whom two are Doctors in Divinity, eight Juniors, to
which one is lately added, and seventy Scholars. Their Public
Commencements are at Shrovetide, and the first Tuesday after
the eighth of July. Their Chancellor is His Grace the Duke of
Ormonde. Since the death of the Right Reverend the Bishop of
Meath[69] they have had no Vice-Chancellor, only _pro re nata_.
The University was founded by Queen Elizabeth, and by her and
her successors largely endowed, and many munificent gifts and
legacies since made by several other well-disposed persons, all
whose names, together with their gifts, are read publicly in the
Chapel every Trinity Sunday, in the afternoon, as a grateful
acknowledgment to the memory of their benefactors; and on the 9th
of January, 1693 (which completed a century from the Foundation
of the College), they celebrated their first secular day, when
the Provost, Dr. Ashe, now Bishop of Clogher, preached, and made
a notable entertainment for the Lords Justices, Privy Council,
Lord Mayor and Aldermen of Dublin. The sermon preached by the
Provost was on the subject of the Foundation of the College,
and his text was Matthew xxvi. 13: “Verily I say unto you,
Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world,
there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for
a memorial of her;” which in this sermon the Provost applied
to Queen Elizabeth, the Foundress of the College. The sermon
was learned and ingenious, and afterwards printed by Mr. Ray,
and dedicated to the Lords Justices, who at that time were the
Lord Henry Capel, Sir Cyril Wiche, and William Duncomb, Esq. In
the afternoon there were several orations in Latin spoke by the
scholars in praise of Queen Elizabeth and the succeeding Princes,
and an ode made by Mr. Tate (the Poet Laureate), who was bred up
in this College. Part of the ode was as this following:--
Great Parent, hail! all hail to Thee;
Who has the last distress surviv’d,
To see this joyful day arriv’d;
The Muses’ second Jubilee.
Another century commencing,
No decay in thee can trace;
Time, with his own law dispensing,
Adds new charms to every grace,
That adorns thy youthful face.
After War’s alarms repeated,
And a circling age completed,
Numerous offspring thou dost raise,
Such as to Juverna’s praise
Shall Liffey make as proud a name
As that of Isis, or of Cam.
Awful Matron, take thy seat
To celebrate this festival;
The learn’d Assembly well to treat,
Blest Eliza’s days recall:
The wonders of her reign recount,
In strains that Phœbus may surmount.
Songs for Phœbus to repeat.
She ’twas that did at first inspire,
And tune the mute Hibernian lyre.
Succeeding Princes next recite;
With never-dying verse requite
Those favours they did shower.
’Tis this alone can do them right:
To save them from Oblivion’s night,
Is only in the Muse’s power.
But chiefly recommend to Fame
Maria, and great William’s name,
Whose Isle to him her Freedom owes
And surely no Hibernian Muse
Can her Restorer’s praise refuse,
While Boyne and Shannon flows.
After this ode had been sung by the principal gentlemen of the
Kingdom, there was a very diverting speech made in English by the
_Terræ Filius_.[70] The night concluded with illuminations, not
only in the College but in other places. Madam, this day being
to be observed but once in a hundred years, was the reason why I
troubled your ladyship with this account.
The sermon preached by Dr. St.-G. Ashe, who presently resigned
the Provostship, is still extant;[71] so is the musical ode, but
so scarce that there seems to be only one copy known, which the
researches for the present feast have unearthed. Some of the text,
which was composed by Nahum Tate, sometime (1672) a scholar of
the House, is given above from Dunton; the rest, which is printed
with the music, is of the same quality. It is chiefly a panegyric
of the reigning sovereigns, William and Mary, justified by their
recent indulgences to the College on account of its losses in the
Revolution. The music of the ode was composed by no less a person
than Henry Purcell, and would certainly have been repeated at
our Tercentenary had it been equal to his standard works. But it
is a curiously poor and perfunctory piece of work, whereas the
anthem then recently composed by Blow, “I beheld, and lo, a great
multitude,” still holds its place in our Chapel, and we gladly
reproduce it in the present festival. The title-page of the score
of the ode states that it was performed at Christ Church, whereas
the accounts of the celebration speak of it in the College--a
discrepancy which I cannot reconcile.
[Illustration: TITLE-PAGE OF THE CENTENARY SERMON.
A
SERMON
PREACHED IN
Trinity-College Chappell,
BEFORE THE
UNIVERSITY
OF
DUBLIN
JANUARY the 9th, 1693/4.
Being the First
SECULAR DAY
SINCE ITS
FOUNDATION
BY
Queen ELIZABETH
By _St. George Ashe_, D. D. Provost of _Trinity College, Dublin_.
Published by the Lords Justices Command.
Printed by _Joseph Ray_ on _College Green_, for _William Norman_
Bookseller in _Dames Street, Dublin_. 1694]
The series of Provosts to whom I have referred--Ashe (1692),
G. Browne (1695), Peter Browne (1699), Pratt (1710)--were all
promoted to Bishoprics, except the first Browne, who died of the
blow of a brickbat which struck him in a College row, and Pratt,
who was so insignificant that he could only obtain a Deanery as a
bribe for his resignation. Of these but one man has left a name,
Peter Browne[72] who composed a work on the “Procedure of the
Understanding,” evidently called forth by the recent Essay of
Locke, which had been introduced into the post-graduate course
by Ashe, and was then very popular. More celebrated, and more
interesting in this history, is the well-known Charge to the clergy
of Cork _on drinking healths_, in which the Bishop criticises “the
glorious, pious, and immortal memory” so dear to Irish Protestants,
and all such other toasts, as senseless, heathenish, and offensive.
It was always understood by his contemporaries that this Charge
showed the writer to be a Jacobite, and when we hear of the
long struggle of Provost Baldwin in subduing this spirit in the
College, we may fairly conjecture that during the reign of Browne
(1699-1710) it was allowed to grow without active interference.
It may indeed be thought that the declaration of loyalty to Queen
Anne, drawn up and signed by the Senate in 1708 (Stubbs, Appendix
xxxiv.), where Peter Browne’s name as Provost appears next to
the Vice-Chancellor’s, is evidence against this statement. The
declaration was caused by the speech of one Edward Forbes, who
was deprived of his degrees. I do not, however, think this merely
formal declaration can overcome the indirect, but serious evidence
of the Bishop’s personal Charge. There seem to be very few details
published concerning this remarkable man’s life. But a group of
famous young men were then passing through the College--Swift,
Berkeley, Delany; and King, an old scholar, was Archbishop of
Dublin. Berkeley was a Fellow, but we hear nothing of him in the
College politics of the day.[73]
The Foundation, therefore, had now become strong enough to live
and flourish in spite of, or in disregard of, its governors. There
is now, indeed, much insubordination mentioned. There seem to have
been many disturbances; the discipline of the place had doubtless
suffered through constantly changing Provosts, who were probably
counting upon promotion as soon as they were appointed. It was
therefore of no small importance to the ultimate success of Trinity
College, that for almost the whole of the eighteenth century it
was ruled by three men who were not promoted, and who devoted a
life’s interest to their duties. In the forty years preceding 1717
there had been (counting Moore) eight Provosts. In the eighty
years succeeding there were only three, and of these the first,
Baldwin, was probably the guiding spirit during the rule of his
weak predecessor, since 1710. The reasons which prevented Baldwin
going the way of all Provosts in those days, and passing on to a
Bishopric, have never been explained. His contemporaries were more
surprised at it (says Taylor) than we can be. And yet these reasons
are manifest enough, and disclosed to us in one of the most obvious
sources of information--the private correspondence of Primate
Boulter. That narrow and mischievous Whig politician, whose whole
correspondence is one vast network of jobbing in appointments,
came into power in 1724, and was for eighteen years the arbiter
of promotion, even of lay promotion, in Ireland. He was a man so
tenacious of a few ideas, that he keeps repeating them in the same
form with a persistency quite ludicrous, if it had not led to
very mischievous effects. He shows the same earnestness, whether
it be in importuning Bishops and Ministers for the promotion to a
Canonry of an obscure friend whose eyesight was so defective that
he was unfit for any post; or whether it be in urging his narrow
policy that all the high offices in Ireland should be filled by
Englishmen. “I hope, after what I have written in many letters
before, I need not again urge the necessity of the See not being
filled with a native of the country.”[74] And it is remarkable that
by _natives_ he only means the Anglo-Irish who had now attained
like Swift, some feeling for the rights of Ireland. Hence he shows
in many letters a marked dislike and suspicion of Trinity College,
which asserted its independence against him. This nettled his
officious and meddling temper considerably. “I cannot help saying
it would have been for the King’s service here if what has lately
been transacting in relation to the Professors had been concerted
with some of the English here, and not wholly with the natives, and
that after a secret manner; that the College might have thought
it their interest to have some dependence on the English” (i.,
227). Swift and Delany he accordingly disliked exceedingly, and so
persistent was his hostility to the Fellows, whom he calls a nest
of Jacobites, that he kept hindering their promotion to the Bench
during the whole of his unfortunate reign--for such we may call
it--over Ireland. Twice he touches upon the claims of Baldwin, whom
he confesses to be a strong Whig politician; he speaks of him with
coldness. He mentions with alarm the rumour that the Provost is to
be promoted, because he regards it impossible to find a safe man
to succeed him in the College. He clearly urges this difficulty
as a reason against his promotion. In another place--which has
been called a recommendation of Baldwin--he uses the following
words:--“Since my return the Bishop of Ossory is dead, and we [the
Lords Justices] have this day joined in a letter to your Grace,
mentioning the most proper persons here to be promoted to that
See. But I must beg leave to assure your Grace that I think it
is of great importance to the English interest that some worthy
person should be sent us from England to fill this vacancy. _If any
person here should be thought of_, I take the promotion most for
the King’s service here will be the making Dr. Baldwin Bishop, and
Dr. Gilbert Provost.” To this letter he receives a reply in ten
days, to which he answers in his next--“I am glad to hear of the
promotion of Dr. Edward Tenison to the See of Ossory, and thank
your Grace for the news.”
So successful, indeed, was this malefactor to the College in
impressing his policy upon English ministers, that while the years
1703-20 had seen six future Bishops and three future Deans obtain
Fellowships, from 1721 to 1763 but one Fellow was elected, Hugh
Hamilton, who obtained either honour. The non-promotion of Baldwin
was therefore a mere instance of Boulter’s policy, which prevailed
for half-a-century. But the accident of this injustice was of great
indirect benefit to the College. Instead of many Bishoprics, we
obtained our first permanent Provost.
The greatest luminary in the united Church of England and Ireland
at the time was the modest and pious George Berkeley. How does
Boulter accept his promotion, which he could not prevent? “As to a
successor to the Bishop of Cloyne, my Lord Lieutenant looks upon
it as settled in England that Dean Berkeley is to be made Bishop
here on the first occasion. I have therefore nothing more to say on
that point, but that _I wish the Dean’s promotion may answer the
expectation of his friends in England_!”
The next two Provosts were laymen and politicians, to whom
promotion did not bar the retention of the Collegiate office.
When the last of these three men passed away, the government
of the College again lapsed into the hands of a series of
Bishops-expectant, succeeding one another with monotonous
obscurity, till the advent of Bartholomew Lloyd in 1837 marks a new
epoch, almost in modern times. The eighteenth century, therefore,
stands out with great distinctness in this history. Almost all
the buildings of the College that give it dignity date from this
time. A new conception of what the country owed to the University,
and the University promised to fulfil, entered into men’s minds.
Grants of hundreds now became grants of thousands; salaries were
no longer pittances but prizes; the Fellows of the College became
dignitaries, not only on account of their position, but their
wealth; and the much-tried and long-struggling College at length
attained security, respect, and influence throughout the country.
The external appearance of the buildings changed as completely as
the spirit of the students. The College in 1770 was far more like
that of 1892 than that of 1700.
The first of these three Provosts, Baldwin, had probably more
influence on the history of the College than any one since the
founders. He was either a self-made man, or put forward by some
influence which disguised itself, so that many varying traditions
were current about his origin and youth. Taylor, who gives very
explicitly the authorities for his story, tells us (p. 249) that
Baldwin, being at school at Colne, in Lancashire, where he was
born in 1672, killed one of his schoolfellows with a blow, and so
fled to Ireland. On arriving in Dublin, being then twelve years of
age, he was found crying in the streets, when a person who kept
a coffee-house took pity on him, and brought him to his home,
where he remained for some time in the capacity of a waiter. A
few months after, Provost Huntingdon wanted a boy to take care of
his horse, when Richard Baldwin was recommended to him, and the
Provost had him instructed and entered at the College. Dr. Stubbs
ignores this story altogether, apparently on the ground of the (not
inconsistent) entry in Kilkenny College, that a boy of this name
matriculated from that place in April, 1685; the College admission
book, however, gives the date April, 1684; indeed, most of the
dates of his earlier promotions appear inaccurate, for though
he may have been a scholar in 1686, how can he have been a B.A.
in 1689, when he is known to have fled to England, and to have
supported himself by teaching in a school in Chester? Dr. Barrett’s
statements are evidently only hearsay. It is certain that grants
of money were given to him as a refugee in England in 1688. At all
events, he was made a Fellow in 1693, and a Senior Fellow in 1697,
from which time he either helped in governing, or governed the
College, till his death in 1758. He was Vice-Provost, under a lazy
absentee Provost, from 1710; he was appointed Provost in 1717.
Baldwin appears to have been in no sense a literary man, beyond
what was necessary for his examinations; on the other hand, he
was a strong and consistent Whig politician, a disciplinarian,
and evidently very keen about the architectural improvement of
the College. He accumulated a large fortune, which he left to
endow it, and which various claimants of his name from England
strove to appropriate for seventy years. In spite of all these
merits towards the College, he is not remembered with affection.
The extant portraits of him represent a stupid and expressionless
face, suggesting severity without natural dignity or good
breeding, though he became so great a figure in the College from
the mere duration of his influence. He did little to improve the
intellectual condition of the students. His temper was morose, and
his policy of crushing out not only political, but other opposition
among both students and Fellows made him for a long time very
unpopular. It is more than likely that his tyrannical conduct in
politics increased rather than diminished the Jacobite spirit in
the College, for the recalcitrant tendencies of youth were then as
they now are, and neither Queen Anne nor George I. was ever likely
to inspire the Irish students with any enthusiastic loyalty.
But Baldwin may fairly be called the architect of the College.
I do not include under that expression his vigilant supervision
and enhancement of the College rents--a very important duty,--or
his large bequests to the society, which have made the office
of Provost one of wealth as well as of dignity. His claim to be
remembered by the Irish public rests upon more obvious grounds.
The undertaking of the present Library building coincides with his
advent to power. It was actually commenced when, as Vice-Provost,
he ruled for the easy-going Pratt. It was finished in the early
and stormy years of his Provostship; and when we consider that of
all the buildings which give Dublin the air and style of a capital
not one then existed, we may better understand the largeness and
boldness of the plan. The Royal Hospital at Kilmainham had indeed
been recently erected, as the arms of the second Duke of Ormonde
over the main door testify. This building, which a vague and
probably false tradition in Dublin attributes to Wren, must have
produced no small impression by its splendour. It was planned
exactly as a college, with the hall and chapel _in directum_,
forming one side of a quadrangle, and surmounted by a belfry. Such
is the plan of many colleges at Oxford. And such was still the
plan of Chapel and Hall in Trinity College when the eighteenth
century opened, and when larger ideas suggested themselves with
the increase of wealth and the disappearance of danger from war
or tumult. Building had never ceased in the College since the Act
of Settlement secured the great College estates in the North and
West. Seele had worked hard to restore and enlarge the buildings,
dilapidated through age and poverty; Marsh and Huntingdon had built
a new Chapel and Hall on the site of the present Campanile, but
excessively plain and ugly; even Pratt proposed the building of
a new belfry over the Hall, a plan which was carried out thirty
years after his resignation. The Chapel is compared by a visitor
to a Welsh church. The old tower at the north side of the College,
which had lasted from the days of All Hallowes’ Abbey, was restored
by Seele, who evidently strove to save this relic of the past. The
Front Square was being rebuilt, when the dangerous interlude of
James II.’s occupation beggared the College for a moment, after
which the houses of the Library Square, which still stand there,
were taken in hand. Perfectly plain they were, but solid, and have
stood the wear and tear of nearly 200 years, not to speak of the
improving fury of occasional innovators, who, even in our day, have
threatened them with destruction.[75] They have been disfigured,
as the Royal Hospital has been, with ugly grey plaster. If the
original red bricks were uncovered, and a tile roof set upon them,
the public would presently find out that they were picturesque. At
all events, the west side, which was taken down in this century,
was a better and more suitable building than those erected (“Botany
Bay”) by way of compensation.
The bold undertaking of building the present great Library, without
possessing books enough to fill more than a corner of it, must have
been Baldwin’s idea. It was no doubt he who hit upon the idea of
soliciting the Irish Parliament for grants, although the College
was rapidly increasing in wealth. £15,000 was obtained in this way
between 1712 and 1724, when the building was finished. The total
cost is said to have been only £17,000! Dr. Stubbs deserves the
credit of discovering the name of the architect, which was long
forgotten, and which is not mentioned, I believe, in the College
Register. He was Mr. Thomas Burgh, in charge of the fortifications
of King William III. If the Royal Barracks, lately abandoned, were
also his work, they offer a strange contrast to his plan for the
Library. What his old Custom House in Essex Street was like I do
not know.[76] Neither do I know upon what authority Dr. Stubbs
adds another detail, that the two small staircases inside the west
door, which lead to the gallery, were transferred from the older
library, where Bishop Jones had set them up in 1651. If so, these
staircases are the oldest piece of woodwork in the College, unless
it be the pulpit used for grace in the present Dining Hall, which
bears evidences of being equally old. The further history of this
Library, which was rapidly enriched by many valuable bequests,
forms the subject of another chapter.
The next improvement seems to have been the laying out and
planting of the College Park, beyond a closed quadrangle behind
the present Library Square, in which the students had their
recreations. The walled-in court was probably thought sufficient,
and most assuredly, until the whole College Park was enclosed,
the unfortunate students would by no means have been allowed to
wander through it. The lodge, built in 1722 for a porter, at
the north-east end, seems to imply that the fencing was then in
process.[77]
These improvements were followed rapidly by the building of a new
Dining Hall, commenced in 1740. A bequest of £1,000 seems to have
been the only help required, and in 1745 it was even adorned with
some of the portraits which still survive. But in 1758 this Hall
was so unsafe that it was taken down, and after dismissing the
College bricklayer for his work,[78] the present Hall was set up on
the same site, and apparently without change of plan. It must be
added, in extenuation of the bricklayer’s conduct, that the ground
in that part of the College affords very insecure foundations, as
we know from recent experiences. The present building has many
great cracks in it, and the new rooms just added have had their
foundations sunk to a great depth.[79] What is, however, more
interesting as history, is to note that the style of this Hall, not
finished till after 1760, is rather the plain and panelled building
of the preceding generation. The Theatre (Examination Hall) is
decorated in a very different, but not, perhaps, a better style.
[Illustration: THE OLD CLOCK TOWER.]
While this work was going on, bequests of £1,000 were left to
build an ornamental front and tower at the west end of the old
Hall; and the well-known architect, Cassels, did so, close to,
but a little west of, the site of the present belfry, in 1745.
In this the present great bell, cast at Gloucester in 1742, was
hung.[80] The aspect of the court, therefore, upon entering the
gate, was that of a small square, closed towards the east with a
building much nearer than the present belfry. The centre of this
east range had the ornamental front and belfry of Cassels’ design,
which, according to the extant plan, must always have been ugly,
and looks very top-heavy.[81] The north and south sides of this
Front Square (built 1685) were of inferior character; while the
small quadrangle beyond, on the south side, including the Provost’s
lodging, was still the original structure of Queen Elizabeth’s
time. The bell tower was taken down as unsafe, and the Hall
removed, at the close of the century. We see, therefore, that in
this great building period there were many serious mistakes made.
There was so much work of the kind going on all through the city,
that there must have been a scarcity of competent artisans, and
much hurry. The buildings which remain are indeed solid and well
finished; but when we attribute these characteristics to all the
Dublin buildings of that date, we forget that their bad work has
long since perished--what was done well and carefully is all that
has remained. While Cassels was building his unsound tower, he
erected another pretty building according to a bequest of Bishop
Stearne--the Printing-House, from which issued in 1741 an edition
of seven dialogues of Plato, in a good though much-contracted
type (which is still preserved in the office), and on good paper,
but disfigured by a portentous list of errata. The book is now
rare, and in request among bibliographers. A few years later, neat
editions of Latin Classics issued from the same press.
This architectural activity, based upon liberal but insufficient
bequests, somewhat excuses the systematic begging petitions
with which the College approached the Irish Parliament for the
rebuilding of the Front Square, Theatre, and Chapel, petitions
which that Parliament seemed never tired of granting, and yet
never able to satisfy. If the taste for fine building and the
Parliament in College Green had not both expired with the end of
the century, Trinity College would now be the most splendidly
housed College in the world. Even as it is, intelligent visitors
cannot but be struck with the massive and dignified character of
its buildings. Queen Anne and George I. had already granted (in
three sums) £15,000 for the Library. George II. granted £45,000 for
the present Front Square and Examination Hall. George III., besides
the relief of £70 yearly in pavement-tax, granted (in 1787) £3,000,
in response to a petition for £12,000. So that, in all, the country
granted the College at least £60,000 for building during the
eighteenth century.[82] It is set forth in these various petitions
that the beauty of the metropolis is one of the objects to be
attained, as well as the health of the students, and accommodation
for increasing numbers.[83] There was a curious hesitation about
the plan of the west front. A central dome and two cupolas at the
north and south ends were designed; the south cupola was actually
finished. Anyone who enters the present gateway will see clearly
that it is designed to sustain a dome. But this dome was never
built; the southern cupola was even taken down in 1758, and the
front left as it now stands.[84]
These buildings are still far the best and most comfortable in the
College. All the bedrooms have fire-places, and even the inner
walls are nearly three feet thick. The rooms in the towers and
beside the gate are very spacious; and as we may presume that
the streets in front of the College were not so noisy as they
now are, were evidently intended as residences for Fellows, and
were occupied by them exclusively till the rise of the various
societies, to which they have afforded excellent reading and
committee rooms. Thus they remain to the present day a noble and
practical monument of the enterprise shown by the College and the
Irish Parliament in the eighteenth century. It is now no longer
the city only, but the country which is interested in the College.
Constant private bequests added to the public liberalities no
small increments; and so far as material prosperity was concerned,
the history of the College during the century is one of continued
growth in popularity and importance.
When we turn to the internal history, the estimate afforded us by
the facts recorded is by no means so satisfactory. As has been
already told, the Jacobite spirit at the opening of the century,
and the violent efforts of Provost Baldwin to subdue it, produced
the insubordination which usually accompanies tyrannical conduct
among young men of spirit living in a free country. Dignified as
the Provost affected to be, he was exposed to personal insults more
than once, not only from Fellows, but from students. Some facts
have been collected by Dr. Stubbs, from whose work I quote the
following:--
During the reigns of Queen Anne and of the first two Georges,
the annals of the College show that the Society suffered from
much insubordination on the part of certain of the Students. This
partly arose from laxity of discipline, and from the influence
of some disorderly and violent Students, and partly from
political causes which were connected with the party feelings
which prevailed [as at Oxford] with regard to the Revolution
and the Hanoverian Succession. It is quite clear that the great
majority of the Fellows, especially of the Senior Fellows,
were loyal to Queen Anne and to the House of Hanover. Yet it
could not be expected that an unanimity of views should prevail
among the Students. There appears to have been a small, but
determined, body among them warmly attached to the fortunes of
James the Second and his family, while the governing body of the
College resolutely determined to suppress all manifestations of
disloyalty to the reigning Sovereign. The earliest instance of
this is a case which occurred in 1708. One Edward Forbes, on
the same day on which he was admitted to the M.A. degree (July
12), took occasion to make a Latin speech, in which he asserted
that the Queen had no greater right to sit on the throne than
her predecessor had--that the title of each Sovereign _eodem
nititur fundamento_. This speech is said to have been made at
the Commencement supper. Forbes’ words, having been repeated
to the authorities, gave great offence to the loyal feelings
of the heads of the College, and to the leading members of
the University, and the orator was consequently expelled from
the College, and suspended from his degrees by the act of the
Provost and Senior Fellows. On the 2nd of the following month,
at a meeting of the Vice-Chancellor, Masters, and Doctors of the
University, Forbes was deprived of his degrees, and degraded from
his University rights; on the same occasion a declaration of
loyalty was put forward by the leading members of the University
Senate, and signed by the Vice-Chancellor, the Archbishop of
Dublin, and the Provost. This document, with the names of the
signatories, is preserved in the College Library. [_Cf._ Appendix
xxxiv. of Dr. Stubbs’ work.]
A strong party of Graduates was dissatisfied with the action of
the Provost and Senior Fellows in the case of Forbes, partly
from political reasons, and partly, perhaps, from a feeling that
the punishment awarded was more severe than the circumstances of
the case required. There can be no doubt that the sentiments of
the members of the Board agreed very closely with those of the
Whig party. We learn, however, from Dr. Edward Synge, afterwards
Archbishop of Tuam, that Forbes had a party of sympathisers
in the University. He says in his pamphlet, which he wrote
vindicating his well-known sermon on Toleration, preached in
1711:--
I remember particularly the constant efforts made in the
University of Dublin (by persons without doors against the
judgment of the Provost and Senior Fellows, who did all they
could to oppose them, and, thank God, prevailed), at every
Commencement for several years, to procure a repeal of the
sentence against Forbes, and a rasure (namely, from the
Register of the University) of those wicked words, _eodem
nititur fundamento_, which placed the title of the late Queen
on the same foot with that of her glorious predecessor.
There was still a small, but troublesome, party among the
Students who agreed with Forbes in his political opinions, for
we find from the College Register, under the date August 17,
1710, that Thomas Harvey, John Graffan, and William Vinicomes,
were proved to have been intoxicated in the College, and to
have crossed over the College walls into the city, and Harvey
was convicted of inflicting an indignity on the memory of King
William, by wrenching the baton out of the hand of his equestrian
statue erected in College Green in 1701. The other two aided and
abetted him in the act. They were all three expelled by the Board.
The heads of the College, as well as the leading Doctors and
Masters, found it necessary to clear the character of the
College from the charges of disloyalty to Queen Anne which were
persistently brought against it. Accordingly, we find in the
records of the proceedings of the Provost and Senior Fellows,
14th July, 1712, that the Vice-Chancellor having signified that
an address be presented to her Majesty from the congregation
in the Regent Houses, leave was given that such an address be
brought in.
On the 8th of February, 1713/4, Theodore Barlow was expelled
for drinking in the rooms of one of the Scholars to the memory
of the horse from which King William was thrown, to the great
danger of his life, and also to the health of the Pretender,
and for denouncing with a curse the Hanoverian Succession. The
heads of the College still deemed it necessary to set forth their
loyalty in the strongest terms, for the decree of expulsion of
Barlow runs as follows. The words are evidently those of the
Vice-Provost, Dr. Baldwin:--
“Visum est igitur Vice-Præposito et Sociis Senioribus, quibus
imprimis cara est Wilhelmi Regis Memoria, qui ex animorum
suorum sententia juraverunt Annæ Serenissimæe Reginæ nostræ
dignitatem et indubitatum Imperii titulum necnon successionem
in Illustrissimâ domo Hanoveriensi per leges stabilitam pro
virili defendere et conservare.”
They had still to combat the hostile spirit of a portion of
the University, who had now a new Vice-Chancellor, Dr. John
Vesey [?], Archbishop of Tuam, a man at that time of the age of
seventy-seven; and on the day after Barlow’s expulsion, at the
Shrovetide Commencements, several Students were prepared to take
their degrees; but some of the Graduates and non-resident Masters
of Arts having caused a motion to be made to the Vice-Chancellor
that the sentence of Forbes’ degradation should be read before
any public business should be proceeded with, the Archbishop was
in favour of having this done; but the Vice-Provost, Baldwin,
believing that this was for the purpose of having a resolution
passed repealing the sentence on Forbes, and relying on the
College regulation that no grace could be presented to the Senate
of the University without the consent of the Board, negatived
the motion. The Vice-Provost’s negative was not allowed by the
Vice-Chancellor, whereupon Baldwin withdrew from the Regent
House into the Provost’s house, followed by the rest of the
Senior Fellows, the Junior Proctor, and the Beadle. Then the
Vice-Chancellor and Masters sent to them by two of the Doctors of
Divinity the following message:--
“The Proctors, Registrar, and Beadle are cited and required to
repair to the Regent House, under pain of contempt.”
To which message the Vice-Provost and Senior Fellows sent the
following reply:--
“The Proctors, Registrar, and Beadle, having communicated to
the Vice-Provost and Senior Fellows the message sent to them by
the Reverend Doctors Hamilton and Gourney, with all humility
offer their opinion that they hold that without the consent
of the Vice-Provost and Senior Fellows nothing can be safely
done in this matter. And, moreover, the Vice-Provost and Senior
Fellows notify that they, with their above-named officers,
will return without further delay, if the Vice-Chancellor will
proceed to confer degrees, and to transact the other business
to which the Vice-Provost shall have consented. Otherwise they
must humbly beg to be excused, being unwilling to do anything
contrary to the Charter of Foundation, and the Laws and Customs
of the University.”
Upon receiving this reply, the Vice-Chancellor adjourned the
Commencement to the 11th of February.
A final outburst of political feeling took place in 1715. On the
8th of April in that year, a Student named Nathaniel Crump was
expelled for saying that Oliver Cromwell was to be preferred to
Charles I.; and five of the Students were publicly admonished for
breaking out of the College at night, and attacking the house
of one of the citizens. On the 31st of May, a Master of Arts, a
Bachelor of Arts, and an Undergraduate, were publicly admonished
for reading a scandalous pamphlet reflecting on the King, under
the name of “Nero Secundus;” and a notice was placed upon the
gates of the College denouncing this pamphlet, and threatening
the expulsion of all Students who should read it or make a copy
of it. The examinations for Scholarships and Fellowship proceeded
as usual, and on Saturday, the 11th of June, two days before the
election, an order came from the Lords Justices to the Provost
and Senior Fellows forbidding the election, based upon a King’s
Letter of the 6th of June, and stating as the grounds of this
prohibition the several disputes and tumults in Trinity College,
which disturbed the Students, and prevented them from studying
for these examinations. The elections, consequently, were not
held, although there was [were] one Fellowship and eleven
Scholarships vacant.
On the 27th of June a Master of Arts was expelled for making a
copy of the pamphlet “Nero Secundus,” and two Bachelors of Arts
were expelled for using language disrespectful to the King; and
on the 3rd of August two more of the Students were expelled on a
like charge. On the 12th of July the Provost and Senior Fellows
petitioned King George I. with respect to the above-mentioned
prohibition. They denied that there were any disputes or tumults
in the College which prevented the Students for preparing for
their several examinations, and stated that the number of
candidates for Fellowships was greater than usual, and the
answering entirely satisfactory. They stated, moreover, than
none of the candidates for the vacant Fellowship or Scholarships
were either accused or suspected of any crime; but they had on
all proper occasions expressed dutiful zeal to the King’s person
and Government. They asked permission to hold the election.
Mr. Elwood and Mr. Howard were sent to London to present this
petition to the King.
On the 16th of February, 1715/6, the Prince of Wales was elected
Chancellor, on the attainder of the Duke of Ormonde, and the
Provost and Dr. Howard were sent to London to present to his
Royal Highness the formal instrument of appointment.
On the 28th of April a letter was received from the Lords
Justices, enclosing a copy of a letter from the King, removing
the prohibition to the election of Fellows and Scholars, and the
statutable examinations were held in the usual manner. On Trinity
Monday one Fellow and thirty-four Scholars were elected.
The following extracts from the MS. letters of Archbishop
King in the College Library will throw some light upon these
proceedings:--
_June 4, 1715._ To Mr. Delafoy.--“The business of the College
makes the greatest noise. Ten years ago I saw very well what
was doing there, and used all means in my power to prevent it;
but the strain was too strong for me, as you very well know,
and ’twill be necessary to use some effectual means to purge
that fountain, which otherwise may corrupt the whole kingdom.
Their Visitors are only the Chancellor and I. We ought to
visit once in three years, but I could never prevail on their
Chancellor to join with me, though I often proposed it;[85] nor
is there any hope that I shall be able to do any good whilst I
am under such circumstances. I take the Chancellor to be for
life, and this makes an impossibility. I believe the Parliament
when it sits will be inclined to look into this matter.”
_June 21, 1715._--“The College readily submitted to his
Majesty’s order to forbear their elections, and I hope will
acquit themselves much better than the University of Oxford has
done by their programme.”
_July 7, 1715._ To Mr. Addison.--“The business of the College
gives a great deal of trouble to every honest man, and a
peculiar pain to me. ’Tis plain there’s a nest of Jacobites
in it: one was convicted last Term; two are run away; and I
believe bills are found against one or two more. But we can’t
as yet reach the fountains of the corruption; but I assure you
no diligence is wanting, and everybody looks on it to be of the
last consequence to purge the fountain of education. I believe
next Parliament will look into the matter.”
In addition to political feeling, there appear to have been from
the beginning of the eighteenth century a few very disorderly
Students in the College, who were always giving trouble to the
authorities.
During the Provostship of George Browne, one of the worst riots
took place in the College, fortunately unattended at the time
by loss of life. [The Provost died of its effects!] College
discipline had become disorganised in the unsettled period which
succeeded the battle of the Boyne, and the Provost and Senior
Fellows resolved to subdue the disorderly spirit which had
manifested itself in the College. They determined to admonish
publicly three or four of the Students who had been particularly
disorderly, and the heads of the College proceeded in a body to
the Hall for that purpose. A few determined Students advanced
resolutely, tore the Admonition paper out of the hands of the
Dean, and turned the Provost out of the Hall. It was probably
on this occasion that Provost George Browne received the blow
which has been mentioned in a previous page. A later instance of
similar insubordination occurred about thirty years afterwards,
when the Provost and Senior Fellows proceeded to the Hall for the
like purpose of punishing some turbulent Students. They were met
on their way with unseemly affronts and reproaches. The doors
of the Hall were locked against them by the Students, and they
were obliged to break open the doors in order to promulgate their
sentence.
In 1733 the rooms of one of the Fellows were attacked by
six or eight of the Students, and they perpetrated there
disgraceful mischief and outrage. The rebellious spirit of some
of the Students went so far that, when they were expelled,
or rusticated, they refused to leave the College, and the
authorities could not put them out without violence. One of the
Students so expelled actually assaulted a Senior Fellow in the
Hall while the sentence of his expulsion was being read out.
These violent proceedings on the part of a few reckless Students
were aided by outsiders, who always came into College when riots
were expected. Thus the unhappy disorders in the College had
become widely known, and were fast bringing the institution to
the lowest disrepute.
A contemporary pamphlet complains that while there were in
the College from five hundred to six hundred Students between
seventeen and twenty-four years of age, there were only twenty
Masters to control them. The Scholars objected to the statutable
custom of capping the Fellows, and it states that--
When the Board meets to inquire into a violation of the
Statutes on the part of the Students, the young gentlemen who
are conscious of their guilt assemble in the courts below; they
have secured a number of their friends; they are surrounded by
a great crowd of their brethren; how many they may have engaged
to be of their party is not to be discovered, and they give,
perhaps, plain intimations that they will not suffer them to be
censured. Trusting in their numbers, they will not suffer any
one man to be singled out for an example.... Physical violence
is consequently to be expected by the Provost, Senior Fellows,
and the Dean proceeding to the Hall to read out censures.
Primate Boulter’s letters throw some light upon the state of
discipline in the College at this time. Baldwin, now become
Provost, most likely from his known devotion to the Whig party
and the Hanoverian Succession, and his efforts to subdue the
Jacobite faction in College, was a man of a very arbitrary and
determined character. He appears to have used the full authority
which the Statutes gave him, and frequently summoned the two
Deans, and removed from the College books the names of disorderly
Students without consulting the Board. Some of the Senior
Fellows, notably Dr. Delany, a strong Tory, whose politics were
shared by his friend and colleague, Dr. Helsham, were opposed to
these arbitrary proceedings, and took measures in London to bring
the matter before the Council, in order to have the Provost’s
statutable power in these matters curtailed. We learn from
Boulter’s letters to the Duke of Newcastle, that early in 1725--
Two Undergraduates of the College, one of them a Scholar,
had company at their chambers till about an hour after the
keys of the College were carried, according to custom, to the
Provost. When their company was willing to go, upon finding the
College gates shut, and being told the keys were carried to
the Provost, the Scholars went to the Provost’s lodgings, and
knocked there in an outrageous manner. Upon the Provost’s man
coming to the door to see what was the matter, they told him
they came for the keys to let out their friends, and would have
them, or they would break open the gates. He assured them the
keys were carried to his master, and that he durst not awake
him to get them, and then the man withdrew. Upon their coming
again to knock with great violence at the Provost’s door, he
was forced to rise, and came down and told them they should
not have the keys, and bid his man and the porter take notice
who they were. The next day he called the two Deans to his
assistance, as their Statutes require, and sent for the lads to
his lodgings. The Scholar of the house came, but not the other.
To him they proposed his making a submission for his fault in
the Hall, and being publicly admonished there. This he made a
difficulty in doing; and upon their proceeding to the Hall,
when he came out of the lodgings he put on his hat before the
Provost and walked off. The Provost and Deans went on to the
Hall, and after waiting there some time to see whether he would
come and submit, they expelled them both.
The Scholar’s name was Annesley, a relation of Lord Anglesea, and
through his influence with the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Carteret)
and the Visitors [and upon his apologising] he was restored....
We find that he took the B.A. degree in 1726, and that of M.A. in
1729.
* * * * *
We are told in a pamphlet, supposed to have been written by Dr.
Madden, that one of the Students, after a long course of neglect
of duties, as well as for a notorious insult [committed] upon the
Junior Dean, was publicly admonished. In order to resent this
punishment, ten or twelve of the Students behaved themselves in
a most outrageous manner; they stoned the Dean out of the Hall,
breaking into his rooms, and destroying everything in them. They
continued to ravage other parts of the College until the middle
of the night, evidently endangering the life of the person who
was the object of their resentment. Dr. Madden adds that this was
done “in a time of great lenity of discipline--perhaps too much
so.” “The Board offered considerable rewards for the discovery
of the perpetrators of these riotous proceedings; the Students
retorted by offering higher rewards to anyone who would bring
in the informer, dead or alive. A threatening letter was sent
to the Provost. Strangers from town, as was usually the case,
came into the College to assist in the pillage. One of these
attempted to set fire to the College gates; and had not some of
the well-disposed Students prevented this, they would have laid
the whole College in ashes, as the flames would have caught hold
of the ancient buildings, extravagantly timbered after the old
manner, and would have reached the new buildings [the Library
Square], and the flames could not then have been extinguished.”
One of the Junior Fellows, named Edward Ford, who had been
elected in 1730, had rendered himself particularly obnoxious to
the Students. He was not Junior Dean; but he appears to have
been an obstinate and ill-judging man, who took upon himself
to restrain the Students in an imprudent manner. They resented
this interference. He had been often insulted by them, and had
received a threatening letter. This caused him much dejection of
spirits; and as his rooms had suffered in the previous tumult,
he kept loaded arms always by his side. One night he was asleep
in his rooms (No. 25), over a passage which then led from the
Library Square into the playground (a walled-in enclosure which
at that time occupied the site of the present New Square). A
loaded gun lay by his bedside. Some of the Students threw stones
against his windows, which was the usual way in which they
annoyed the College authorities. Ford rose from his bed and fired
upon them from his window, which faced the playground. Determined
to retaliate, the band of Students rushed to their chambers,
seized the fire-arms, which they had persisted in keeping
(although such had been forbidden, under pain of expulsion, by a
decree of the Board, March 24, 1730), and they ran back to the
playground. In the meanwhile one of the Scholars, who resided
in the same house, seeing the danger in which Ford was placed,
and knowing the character of the man, managed to get into his
bedroom, and strongly urged him to remain in bed. Ford, with his
characteristic obstinacy, would not listen to this advice, but
went to the window in his nightdress, when the Students seeing
him, fired at the window, and wounded him mortally. Poor Ford
lingered in great agony for about two hours before he died. The
Board immediately met and investigated the circumstances of the
murder, and expelled Mr. Cotter, Mr. Crosby, Boyle, Scholes, and
Davis, as being the authors of or participators in Mr. Ford’s
murder. The Board employed Mr. Jones, an attorney, to prosecute
them for murder at the Commission Court, at which trial, however,
they were acquitted.
We learn from contemporary pamphlets that the feeling among the
upper classes in Dublin was greatly excited about this affair.
Many, especially ladies, strongly took the part of the young men--
The Fellows were the subjects of common obloquy; every little
indiscretion of their former lives was ripped up; everything
they said or did had a wrong turn given to it. Numberless false
stories about them were spread throughout the kingdom. Some of
them were publicly affronted in the Courts of Law by one of his
Majesty’s servants for appearing to do the common offices of
every honest man. One noble Lord declared that a Fellow’s blood
did not deserve an inquisition which might detain a man one day
from his ordinary business. However, the Judges (except one)
all spoke loudly in favour of the College, and specially the
Chief Baron.
Primate Boulter is said to have often appeared astonished when
he heard gentlemen talk as if they were determined to destroy
the Irish seat of learning. It is added that “many did this for
the purpose of injuring religion.” No doubt the true explanation
of the animosity to the College is to be sought in the strong
political feelings which prevailed at the time. The Fellows were
mainly Whigs, and their opponents belonged to the Tory party.
Early in March, 1734/5, the Visitors cited the Provost, Fellows,
and Scholars to appear at a Visitation on the 20th of that month.
Primate Boulter wrote to the Duke of Dorset that--
There have been such difficulties started from the College,
and so much listened to by their Vice-Chancellor, the Bishop
of Clogher [Dr. Stearne], that I fear the Visitation will
not prove such as will answer expectation. I have taken all
opportunities of desiring the Fellows and their friends to
avoid all needless disputes and oppositions for fear of their
falling into the hands of worse Visitors next Session of
Parliament. I hope and fear the best; but things do not promise
very well.
The above cited pamphlet states that “at the late inquiry into
the condition of the College, there could not be discovered more
than two or three insignificant points in which the Statutes were
deviated from by the Fellows.”
To this account we should add that Swift, who disliked and despised
Baldwin, took a great interest in the Visitation of 1734, and
went down to give his opinion concerning the management of the
College, which he thought very bad. He also wrote to the Duke of
Dorset on the subject (Jan. 14, 1735). But the fact added by Dr.
Stubbs, that after the affair of Ford we hear no more of riots or
of insubordination, shows that the mischief was not deep-seated,
but caused by some small knot of rowdies. It does not appear that
they were led by young men of the higher classes, for though many
frequented the College at that time, no names of prominence (save
an Annesley) are mentioned in connection with any of the outrages.
Such disorders have always been rather the fault of the Governors
than of the students of the College. The course of Irish history
is so uniform, the temper of the various classes in the nation is
so unchanged (as every student of Irish history knows), that I do
not believe the discipline which is so easily maintained now in
Trinity College was ever seriously endangered, and the very fact
that so many brilliant and learned men were being educated there
at that period shows that its intellectual life was not impaired.
The particular form of the studies pursued cannot be easily
estimated. An examination of the Laudian Statutes shows that the
authorities were not allowed in any way to change the subjects
laid down for the course in 1637. The whole body of the teaching,
as already explained, was oral, and each student reproduced in
essays or disputations what he had been taught by his tutor during
the week. Hence it was that such short books as those written by
Dudley Loftus or Narcissus Marsh, though used by lecturers, were
not formally proposed to the students. Locke’s Essay, as we know,
was introduced into the post-graduate studies by the influence of
Ashe and Molyneux before 1700, and has influenced the spirit of the
University ever since; but this, too, was outside the prescribed
course. It was not till 1760 that, by a special statute, the
Provost and Board were permitted to make such changes in the course
as they thought expedient. This permission, conceded long after it
was needed and indeed assumed,[86] marks an epoch in the history of
the College. But it belongs to the reign, not of Baldwin, but of
his enlightened and brilliant successor, Andrews.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter ending)]
FOOTNOTES:
[66] A mistake for Loftus, the first Provost. This full-length
portrait is now in the Provost’s House. What has become of the
second picture is uncertain. The tomb, alas, is now a mere ruin, to
be described in another chapter.
[67] This shows how long the project was discussed. The money was
not given till ten years later.
[68] The only mention of this house, which was replaced by the
present mansion 70 years later.
[69] Dr. Anthony Dopping.
[70] This character, intended to enliven the solemnity of public
acts, appears to have been borrowed from the precedent of Oxford.
In a curious book intitled _Terræ Filius_ (London, 1726), which
consists of a series of satires upon that University, the anonymous
author says--“It has, till of late, been a custom, from time
immemorial, for one of our family to mount the Rostrum at Oxford
at certain seasons [during the Acts of the Term], and divert
an innumerable crowd of spectators, who flocked to hear him
from all parts, with a merry oration, interspersed with secret
history, raillery, and sarcasm.... Several indignities having been
offered to the grave fathers of the University, they said to one
another--‘Gentlemen, these are no jests; if we suffer this, we
shall become the sport of freshmen and servitors. Let us expel
him.’ And, accordingly, _Terræ Filius_ was expelled during almost
every Act.” And again (p. xi.)--“Though it has, of late years, been
thought expedient to lay aside the solemnity of a _Publick Act_,
and it is very uncertain when _Terræ Filius_ will be able to regain
his antient privileges.”
There is a frontispiece to the book, signed W. Hogarth, which
represents an enraged Don tearing in pieces the libel of the _Terræ
Filius_, who is in the middle of an excited crowd of collegians
and ladies. The author speaks of the seditious spirit of Oxford
in the very way that the spirit of Dublin is censured at the same
time; and just as the _Terræ Filius_ of Oxford had been censured
and persecuted when his jests became libellous, so in Swift’s day,
just before the Centenary time, one Jones, an intimate of Swift’s,
had been deprived of his degrees for a satire, which Barrett has
published as possibly composed by Swift to aid his friend.--_Cf._
Barrett’s _Early Life of Swift_ (London, 1808).
The heads at Oxford, holding public acts in 1712, stopt the mouth
of the _Terræ Filius_ (who is called a _statutable_ orator at this
solemnity), having intelligence that he designed to utter something
in derogation of the Reverend Mr. Vice-Chancellor, _op_. _cit_. p.
100. This is probably the affair spoken of in J. C. Jeaffreson’s
_Annals of Oxford_, ii. 224, but referred to the year 1713. Mr.
Jeaffreson has a whole chapter on the subject.
[71] I owe to the kindness of Mr. J. R. Garstin my knowledge of
this rare tract, of which the title-page is reproduced on page 52;
the bidding prayer is given on page 10. A passage which smacks
of the 17th century is as follows. The preacher is arguing that
Learning can amply satisfy all the aspirations and desires of human
nature. He concludes--“Lastly, what Raptures can the _Voluptuous_
man fancy, to which those of _Learning_ and _Knowledge_ are
not equal? If he can relish nothing but the pleasures of his
_Senses, Natural Philosophy_ exposes the _beautiful bosome_ of the
_Universe_, admits him into _Nature’s_ garden, &c.”
[72] The appointment of this Browne is the subject of various
curious letters preserved in the Ormonde MSS. at Kilkenny Castle
(Vol. 156). I give the first completely, and extracts from the
others. They might have been written yesterday.
9644 Trinity College, Dub., May 16, ’99.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR GRACE,
Our Provost in appearance is past recovery, yet I had not so soon
made any application to succeed him, but that others have been
beforehand with me by another Interest.
Tho’ I have reason to hope for a recommendation of me by
Government, yet I am not willing to use any endeavours without your
Grace’s knowledge and concurrence. I am sensible it is a place of
great trust and importance to the whole kingdom, and if your Grace
upon inquiry shall find me qualified to discharge it, I do most
humbly beg your Grace’s favour in recommending me to His Majesty
for it.--That God may continue, &c., &c., Your humble & obed.
PETER BROWNE.
9645. The Provost of this College being now near his end, which I
am heartily sorry for, I presume amongst the many addresses, &c.
I beg to recommend the Restoring the same Person to it whom your
Grace’s grandfather himself put in, I mean Dr. Huntington, who upon
the Dispersion here was as a Father to all that then went over, and
provided so well for some of them when they were in England, that 2
of your Bps., viz., Dr. Ashe and Dr. Smith, owe their Preferments
in a manner entirely to him, for it was he who laid the foundation
of them, tho’ he is now entirely neglected.
This unfortunate Person, for so I must needs call him, except your
G^{ce} becomes his Patron, left the College upon the Revolution, or
was rather by Providence sent over to provide for those who knew
not what to do for themselves. Then he married, &c., but is still
capable of the Place by the King’s Dispensation, as Dr. Seele was,
at the Restoration, and obtained it in that way. And because this
Gentleman has already showed himself one of the most usefull men
in that place, and the likelyhood to prove the most serviceable to
it now it is in its Rubbish, I now take the confidence, who was
employed by the late Duke, my master, to bring him over, &c.
WILL. [Moreton, Bp. of] KILDARE.
[Extracts.] Dub. 6 June, 1699.
9648. The Provost of the Coll. being dead on Sunday night, it will
import your G^{ce} as Chancellor to interpose, &c. I know Mr. Peter
Browne, who is an eminent preacher & Senior Fellow, &c., will be
recommended, &c., &c.
[Sir] RICHARD COX.
9649. Ardhaccan, June 7th.
Our excellent Provost being dead, &c., that you will be pleased to
recommend Dr. Owen Lloyd, who is our Div. Prof., or Dr. John Hall,
who is Vice-Provost, to his Majesty, &c., &c.
I hear the Lords Justices have recommended one Mr. Peter Browne,
who is a S^r Fellow, & has a parish in the City of Dublin, &c., &c.
Nor is it my opinion alone, but that of the Bp. of Clogher (Ashe),
who was formerly Provost, & has now earnestly importuned me to
address your G. & the Arbp. of Cant. in Dr. Lloyd’s or Dr. Hall’s
behalfe, and to Pray your G^{rce} that Mr. Peter Browne, who is
much their junior, may not have it, &c., &c. I have sent the Bp.’s
letter to His G^{ce} of Cant., in which the late Provost’s opinion
of Mr. Browne’s unfitness for the place is fully declared.
RICH. MEATH.
[73] To him and to Swift in this generation, to Goldsmith,
Sheridan, and Burke in the next, are due in great part the
development of modern English prose. In this, as in so many other
ways, the Anglo-Irish have been the masters of the English.
[74] I may recall to the reader the dignified protest of the first
Duke of Ormonde, against this very practice, in the interests of
the University, above, p. 33.
[75] I remember being told by the late Provost to formulate my
protest as soon as possible, for that the demolition of these
buildings would be commenced within a fortnight. My argument in
their favour was, that while they were perfectly sound, they were
also historical evidences of the antiquity of the College, and of
its condition in 1700. I remember adding that it might be a very
long fortnight before the work of destruction began.
[76] _Cf._ Stubbs, p. 177.
[77] The petition to Parliament in 1787 states “that from an
attention to the health and accommodation of their students,
petitioners have expended considerable sums of money _in the
purchase_ of ground for the enlargement of their park, the
enclosing and finishing of which will be attended with considerable
expense” (Taylor, p. 95). The fact here officially stated, that the
College increased its holding of land in Dublin by purchase during
the eighteenth century, is very interesting, and is probably to be
explained by searching the Register.
[78] This seems to me one of the boldest acts of Baldwin. We should
have expected to find the incompetent workman either employed to
repeat his work on the new Hall, or at least pensioned by the Board.
[79] The east end subsided in the present century, and was then
rebuilt, in the memory of the present Vice-Provost, from whom I
have learned the fact.
[80] The Dublin papers of June, 1744, speak with enthusiasm of the
arrival of this great bell, “on which the mere import duty was £20,
and which all lovers of harmony allow to be the largest, finest,
and sweetest-toned bell in the kingdom. It was cast by the famous
Rudhall of Gloucester.”
[81] The picture given by Dr. Stubbs was possibly never realised.
There are several extant views of the College subsequent to 1745
and up to 1797, which all represent the belfry as a dome without
the lantern or the vane, “consisting of a harp and crown, copper
gilt” (Stubbs, p. 187). A rare aquatint of 1784 does, however,
give the vane, with other details which are highly improbable. It
was a habit to print architects’ drawings of buildings in process
of completion, as may be seen in Poole and Cash’s views, in which
many plates give the intentions of the architect, which were never
carried out.
[82] Mr. Taylor, in his history, has given all the petitions and
replies from the Journals of the House of Commons. The following
is the summary:--Queen Anne and George I. for Library--in 1709,
£5,000; 1717, £5,000; 1721, £5,000. George II. for Parliament
Square--1751, £5,000; 1753, £20,000; 1755, £5,000 (£20,000 asked
for in the petition): 1757, £5,000; 1759, £10,000. George III., in
1787, £3,000. Between the last two dates considerable sums were
obtained from the Board of Erasmus Smith.
[83] While the impossibility of defraying these expenses without a
building fund is strongly urged in the various petitions, another
set of documents, the King’s Letters, issued for the increase of
salaries of Provost, Fellows, and other officers in 1758, 1759,
1761, and subsequently, state as the reason the great increase
in the revenues of the College, which justify such changes. No
one seems to have thought of comparing these statements with the
begging petitions.
[84] No reasons are assigned by Dr. Stubbs, who reports these facts
apparently from the Register; but we may infer that the large
square Hall over the gate was thought necessary for a Regent House,
or Hall for the disputations of the Masters, in place of the older
room, which disappeared with the demolishing of decayed buildings;
and by this title we know that that Hall was originally known. This
alteration of plan would make a dome impossible. As soon as the
central dome was abandoned, it would follow that the cupolas, one
of which had been already finished, must also be abandoned.
[85] This cannot easily be reconciled with the statement above made
(p. 65), that Archbishop Vesey was Vice-Chancellor in the previous
year, and in the absence of the Chancellor could act as Visitor.
[86] The facts in Dr. Stubbs’ 10th chapter, especially the
classical course of 1736, show that the 15th chapter of the old
Statute was liberally interpreted. Indeed Greek and Latin are there
prescribed, but the books not specified. In Logic the directions
are far more precise. Nor was there any relaxation of the strict
directions with regard to Latin Essays and summaries of work, or
to Disputations, which certainly lasted till the close of the 18th
century.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]
CHAPTER IV.
FROM 1758 TO THE CLOSE OF THE CENTURY.
_Dedit ergo eis petitionem ipsorum,_
_Et misit tenuitatem in animam eorum._
PSALM cvi. 15.
Provost Andrews, a layman, but a Senior Fellow, and one of a
distinguished group of lay Fellows then in the College, succeeded
less than two years before George III. became king. His Provostship
is perhaps the most brilliant in the annals of the College. He was
a man of elegant tastes, of large acquaintance, of scholarship
quite adequate to his position, and he consequently did more
than any of his predecessors or successors to bring the Society
over which he presided into contact with the best and greatest
throughout Ireland. Even under the stricter and more academic
Baldwin, we learn from the Register that a large number of the
highest classes in Ireland had begun to frequent the College.[87]
We may assume that under Andrews this tendency increased. It was
only necessary to prove that the education of Dublin was equal
to that of the older Universities, to induce men of property in
Ireland to avoid the troubles and anxieties of sending their sons
by the roads and boats of those days to Oxford and Cambridge; and
thus we find that from the opening of the eighteenth century to
the second decade of the nineteenth the great body of the Irish
aristocracy was educated in Dublin. It would have been so, even
into recent days, if the Senior Fellows of the latter period had
thought earnestly about the dignity of the College.
The character of this Provost, according to his contemporaries
and the historians of the College, was very different from that
of Baldwin. He is indeed accused of good living, a great crime
in a College Don, when it includes brilliant society and rich
appointments; mere over-eating and drinking incur little censure.
But Andrews could speak Latin with fluency and elegance, and we
are glad to learn that in his day the Irish pronunciation did
not make him incomprehensible in Italy or France. He built and
occupied the noble Provost’s House,[88] which still remains one
of the mansions that give to Dublin its metropolitan aspect. He
entertained handsomely, both in the new Dining Hall and at his own
House. He must have been the promoter and founder of the School
of Music, which has produced a series of excellent Professors,
and created a distinct school of composition, starting from that
fortunate accident, a musical Peer--the Earl of Mornington, father
of the great Duke of Wellington. The principal Parliamentary grants
for building were during the extreme old age of Baldwin, so that
I suspect the influence of Andrews, who was then a Senior Fellow,
and a member of the Irish House, must have been the chief cause of
this sudden liberality; for after the completion of the Library in
1724, there is a pause in the Parliamentary grants till 1751, and
again they disappear after 1759, when Andrews became Provost, till
1787. But it is asserted in Duigenan’s pamphlet that the grants
of Baldwin’s time were not exhausted during the whole of Andrews’
Provostship. I take it, then, that Andrews had ample funds for the
fine buildings erected during his office.[89] Constant increase of
the College rents and constant bequests made it possible to rebuild
the Dining Hall in his time (1759-61), and no doubt much remained
to be done in making the new front, finished in 1759, habitable.
There was much hospitality, and good society was encouraged in the
College. The greatest ceremony during his time was the installation
of the Duke of Bedford as Chancellor, which is thus described by
the Registrar:--
Friday, Sept. 9 [1768].--This day his Grace John Duke of Bedford
was installed Chancellor of our University.
The Hall had been previously prepared by erecting a platform
at the upper end, and a gallery for the musicians at the lower
end. The platform was erected 2 feet 6 inches from the floor and
railed in. At the back in the middle, under a canopy of green
damask, and upon a semicircular step raised six inches above the
level of the platform, was placed a chair for the Chancellor, on
the right hand a chair for the Vice-Chancellor, and on the left
another for the Provost. From these chairs on each side along the
back and sides down to the rails were raised seats and forms, and
on the right side, advanced before those seats, were placed two
chairs of state for the Lord Lieutenant and his Lady. Over the
door of the Hall, and eight feet above the floor, was erected
the gallery for the musicians, and along the sides of the Hall,
between the platform and gallery, were seats raised and forms
placed, leaving a passage in the midst seven feet wide. On the
right side, next to the platform, part of the seats were enclosed
as a box for the reception of such ladies of quality whom the
Chancellor should invite. The platform with its steps, the
gallery and the seats, were covered with green broadcloth. The
passage through the midst of the Hall was covered with carpeting,
and the semicircular step under his Grace’s chair ornamented with
a rich carpet.
When the Lord Lieutenant and his Lady, the Nobility, the Lord
Mayor and Sheriffs of the city, the ladies of quality and
fashion, and all who walked not in the procession, had taken
their seats in the Hall, the procession moved solemnly from
the Regent House, the chamber over the gateway, to the Hall in
the following order, according to juniority:--Undergraduates,
Bachelors of Arts, candidates for Degrees, Masters of Arts,
Bachelors in Music, in Law, in Physic, in Divinity, Doctors
in Music, in Law, in Physic, in Divinity, Senior Fellows,
Noble Students, Vice-Provost, Beadle with his Mace, Proctors,
Chancellor between the Vice-Chancellor on his right and the
Provost on his left, Archbishops, Dukes, Earls, Viscounts,
Bishops, Barons, &c., &c.
Every gentleman who walked in the procession was habited in the
robes of his Order and Degree. The Undergraduates and Bachelors
of Arts stopped at the Hall-door, opened to right and left, and
after the Nobility entered the Hall according to seniority. The
candidates for Degrees, Masters in Arts, and Bachelors in Music,
Law, Physic, and Divinity, stopped at the steps of the platform.
The Doctors, &c., ascended the platform by four steps. During
this procession the musicians played a solemn March composed on
the occasion by the Earl of Mornington, Professor of Music.
The music having ceased, the Registrar read the Act of the
College constituting his Grace their Chancellor. Upon which the
Vice-Chancellor and the Provost, assisted by the Seniors, led his
Grace to the canopy and installed him. And the Vice-Chancellor
having taken his place on the right, when the Mace and the
University Rules were laid at his feet, the Provost, assisted
by the Seniors, delivered into his Grace’s hand a printed copy
of the College Statutes elegantly bound, promising for himself
and the University all due and statutable obedience. His Grace
then arising returned them thanks for the honour they had done
him in electing him their Chancellor, expressing that it was
more pleasing to him, as this mark of the confidence of a Body
so distinguished by their learning, virtue, and loyalty, gave
him reason to hope that his conduct during his administration
was not disagreeable to the people of Ireland in general,
whose prosperity and welfare, and particularly the honour and
privileges of the University, he would seek every occasion to
advance, &c.
The Provost having taken his place on the left, and the Seniors
having retired to their seats, after a short pause the Provost
rose and addressed the Chancellor and the University in a most
elegant Latin oration, in the close of which he addressed himself
particularly to the Professor of Music, who thereupon gave
the signal to the musicians, and gave copies of the Ode to the
Lord Lieutenant and the Chancellor. The Ode was written on the
occasion by Mr. Richard Archdale, an Undergraduate, and was set
to music by the Professor, the Earl of Mornington.
After the conferring of the Degrees by the Chancellor, the
Commencement was closed, and the musicians played the March, as
before, and the Procession, as before, attended his Grace to the
Provost’s House.
His Grace, with the Nobility, Fellows, Professors, &c., dined in
the Eating Hall. There were two chairs placed at the head of the
table; the Lord Lieutenant sat on the right hand.
Sunday, Sept. 11.--His Grace the Chancellor was sung into Chapel
by the Choir. He sat in the Provost’s stall, the Provost in the
Vice-Provost’s; the Vice-Provost, Nobility, and Professors,
were seated in the adjoining seats. Two Senior Fellows read
the Lessons, the Deans the Communion Service. The Professor of
Divinity preached from Proverbs, chap. xv., verse 14. There were
two Anthems. The _Te Deum_ and the _Jubilate_ were composed by
the Earl of Mornington.
On Tuesday, Sept. 13, the Chancellor, attended by the Provost,
Fellows, and Professors, visited the Elaboratory, Anatomy School,
Waxworks, &c. In the Natural Philosophy School his Grace was
addressed by Mr. Crosbie, a _Nobilis_, son of Lord Brandon, in
English verse.... As his Grace was quitting the Library, the
Professor of Oratory addressed him in an English farewell speech,
which his Grace was pleased to answer with great politeness.
The reader will remember that the Hall mentioned at the opening of
this extract was the old Hall, then entered under the dome which
appears in all the views of the College of that epoch. The date of
the first edition of the Statutes (August 22, 1768), when compared
with this account, also shows that they were first printed for the
purpose of this ceremony. The Chancellor’s copy of these Statutes
had probably been lost, or never perhaps handed over to the Royal
Personages who had recently been Chancellors; and indeed we wonder,
with a printing press now over twenty years established, that the
work had not yet been issued in print. The difficulty lay in the
Laudian Statute, which specially provided that three copies should
exist, and implied that no more should be circulated.[90] There is
possibly some entry in the Registry which would explain how the
Board evaded this obstacle. The printed copy bears opposite the
title-page, in print, _vera copia, Theaker Wilder, Reg^r_.
It is much to be regretted that the Ode, with Mornington’s music,
has disappeared.[91] It is stated by Dr. Stubbs that the Duke of
Bedford’s fine portrait by Gainsborough, now in the Provost’s
House, was presented upon this occasion. But there is an exactly
similar picture in the Dublin Mansion House, which must surely have
been presented by Bedford, or acquired by the city, while he was
Lord Lieutenant, seven years earlier. The portrait, therefore, in
the Provost’s House must be a replica, unless it was presented to
Provost Andrews much earlier than the date of the Installation.
Our Bursar, in his history, states with cold precision the large
amounts spent upon dinners to the Viceroys in these hospitable
days. It does not appear that the feast given to the Duke of
Bedford was by any means as costly as some of those given in later
years.[92] Such are the gossiping details preserved concerning this
Provost and his social doings in the College.
It might be easily inferred, were it not stated expressly in the
angry controversies with his successor, that the discipline of
the College was much relaxed, and many abuses tolerated by this
amiable man. The old Statutes regulating studies in the autumn
(out of term) had fallen into desuetude; the Chapel was shut up
in July, and all business ceased for six weeks. Residence was
not enforced at this time, or indeed at other times, in the case
of poor scholars, who went as tutors into country houses. Still
worse, the marriage of several Fellows, in spite of their solemn
oath of celibacy during their tenure, was connived at, and thus a
habit tolerated of trifling with solemn obligations, which not only
brought great scandal upon the College, but lowered the general
dignity and respectability of the Governing Body. Most of them were
in debt to the College, and with the expectation of never having
payment enforced. It also appears accidentally, from a document
printed by Taylor, that the Wide Street Commissioners, making a
report to the Irish Parliament in 1799 on the condition of the
College property extending from the north precinct to the river,
found that the houses and land had, by some great oversight, been
let on a long lease (60 years), at a small rent, to the Bishop of
Raphoe.[93]
We may assume that the great social successes of Andrews’
Provostship encouraged the Government, on his death, to promote
another layman, and lawyer, into the vacant post. It was doubtless
argued that, with the increase of wealth and splendour in the
College, it must be represented by a public man, a man of the
world, and a good speaker. But the new Provost, John Hely
Hutchinson, lacked other and not less necessary qualifications
which had made Andrews so successful. In the first place he had
never been a Fellow, and thus was not only ignorant of the routine
of College work, but also of the characters and susceptibilities of
the Fellows. It was but natural that such of them as were baulked
in their advancement by his appointment, and who thought themselves
more worthy to hold it, resented the promotion of a stranger by
political influence. Though Hutchinson managed to gain over certain
members of the Board, he found others irreconcilable, and he is
alleged to have dealt with them in unscrupulous fashion, both by
attempted bribery and by open oppression. The moral standard of his
profession, and indeed of the official classes throughout Ireland,
was very low. Every successful man seems to have feathered his nest
by obtaining or creating sinecures, nor was there any limit to the
rapacity which accumulated them in the same hands. It was well
that Hutchinson did not set himself to plunder the College for his
family; the few cases of inferior officers whom he thrust upon the
College, which his adversaries have exposed, are mere trifles.
But he was ambitious of political power for his sons; and he
certainly strove to make the College a pocket-borough. This
attempt brought about him a nest of hornets. The fact was, that
bribery or intimidation, which might be used with hardly any risk
in constituencies of ordinary electors, was sure to stumble upon
some young gentleman of high character and independence among the
Fellows or Scholars, and thus be exposed.
On the other hand, the abuses tolerated by Andrews gave the new
Provost a great power of intimidation, which he could have used
very effectually. Fellows with wives and large families, who had
broken their solemn engagement to celibacy, and resided outside
the College, contrary to the Statutes, who, moreover, owed to the
College large sums of money for the purchase of rooms, which they
could not pay, were practically in the Provost’s hands. It is much
to be regretted that when a layman, an outsider, and a public
man chanced to be set over the Society, he did not take in hand
thorough reforms on these all-important points--reforms which could
hardly be expected from an old member of the Corporation, promoted
after years of acquiescence or participation in the growing
laxities of discipline.
But the school in which Hutchinson was educated was even morally
worse than that of the culpable Fellows. There must be substantial
truth in the constant allegation, proved by two Parliamentary
inquiries, that the Provost’s assertions of discipline were not
just and uniform, but intended to promote his political power.
Both in 1776 and in 1790, when Hutchinson secured the return of
his elder and younger sons respectively by a very narrow majority,
there were petitions against them on the ground of intimidation
and bribery, and the evidence then given is the real ground of
the severe judgment which the local historians have pronounced
against the Provost. In the former petition his son was unseated;
in the latter--remarkable for having Lord Edward Fitzgerald and the
future Duke of Wellington among its members--the casting vote of
the chairman saved the sitting member. The evidence in both cases
is so very similar, that we cannot but wonder at the incaution of
the Provost, who was probably saved from a second disgrace only by
his personal influence with the Chairman of the Committee. In this
latter case, however, Hutchinson disowned altogether the person
who acted as go-between, and who made offers to the scholars. He
was private tutor to the Provost’s family, but was dismissed, and
excluded from the precincts of the College by order of the Visitors.
The case is therefore strong against the Provost, though we should
remember that in those days all Parliamentary elections in Ireland
were carried on by similar means, and that bribery was only
condemned by the law, not by the moral sense of the community.
This public evidence has, however, not weighed in the minds of
historians so strongly as the violent pamphlet called _Lachrymæ
Academicæ_, written against the Provost by his bitter personal
enemy, Dr. Patrick Duigenan, who as a Junior Fellow was at
perpetual variance with his chief, and at last resigned his
Fellowship to take a Chair of Law, which was increased in value
(with the Provost’s consent) to induce his resignation. This
exceedingly violent _ex parte_ statement seems to me chiefly
valuable for its allusions to the internal affairs of the College
not at issue in the dispute. The tone is scurrilous, and the
confident prediction that a few more years of the Provost’s
manipulation must ruin the College falsified by the facts. Instead
of securing all the posts in the College for partizans of his own,
the Provost met with more and more opposition, especially from the
Junior Fellows, as years elapsed. In 1775, a scholar whom he had
deprived insisted upon a Visitation, in which Primate Robinson,
the Vice-Chancellor, decided against the Provost. In 1791, another
Vice-Chancellor, Lord Clare, decided against him on the right of
negative, which he claimed under the Statutes in every election.
The sense of the Statute is plain enough. It ordains that the
majority of Provost and Board shall decide elections; but if such
majority could not be obtained after two scrutinies--that is to
say, if the Senior Fellows had divided their votes among three or
more candidates, so that none of them had more than three--then the
Provost’s vote, even if it stood alone, shall decide the election.
This very reasonable Statute was, however, so worded, that another
interpretation was possible, ordaining that even in an absolute
majority of votes the Provost’s must be one. Lord Clare decided
rightly that the disputed words _una cum Præposito, vel eo absente
Vice-Præposito_, merely meant that the Senior Fellows could not
elect without the presence of either of these officers.[94]
This Visitation concludes the long history of the quarrels of
the political Provost with his Fellows. He was then an old man,
and though he showed considerable vigour in arguing his case,
it is evident that the fire of his ambition was burning low,
and his combativeness decreasing with the decay of his physical
powers. It is a great pity that while a collection of scurrilous
tracts--_Pranceriana, Lachrymæ Academicæ_, and others--were
published and widely circulated, and are still quoted against
him, his own account of the history of the College, of his own
doings, and of the character of his opponents, has remained in MS.,
and even this MS. is not now in the Library, but in possession
of Mr. Charles Todd. It is therefore only known through the few
extracts which those writers have made who have had access to this
source. The impression produced by these extracts is strongly in
Hutchinson’s favour; he speaks with admiration of some of his
opponents, and with great calmness of his own political mistakes.
Until this important document is thoroughly examined, the case
for Provost Hutchinson cannot be considered complete, nor can we
determine all the motives of his policy. We can, however, infer
from the public acts of his government the following conclusions.
In the first place, he clearly desired to modernise the education
of the students, not only by modifying their course of study
(of which Dr. Duigenan says he was an incompetent judge), but
by making them practise accomplishments quite foreign to old
Collegiate discipline. The account of his improvements suggests
that he advanced in the direction which Andrews had set for the
College, but so rashly as to make his government a parody of that
of his predecessor. Having himself called out his man, and fought
a duel, he could not possibly interdict the use of arms among the
students; and we hear strange and probably exaggerated accounts of
the number of students killed or maimed in affairs of honour.[95]
Akin to the practice of arms was the practice of horsemanship,
which brought upon him some ridicule when he desired to have a
riding-school attached to the College. This idea was probably
suggested to him by country gentlemen, who thought that their sons
should receive a complete training for their after life in the
University. The same ideas prompted him to found Chairs of Modern
Languages, which have lasted to this day, and which proclaimed the
startling novelty that not dead languages only, but the living
languages of Europe are part of a liberal education. However late
and imperfect the teaching of modern languages at the University
may have been, we can here also infer that it was the solicitation
of parents of the higher classes which made Hutchinson propose
these changes, all of which tended to make the students men of the
world.
As regards his own office, he did many things to promote its
permanent dignity. He persuaded the Board to give him a grant for
enlarging the fine house which his predecessor had built, and
this addition is one of its chief features; it is the stately
Provost’s study, added at the north end of the main structure.
He took care so to lease the Provost’s estate as to preserve
its rental undiminished to his successors. The same principles
appear in his improvement of the College. With the aid of a grant
from the Erasmus Smith’s Board of £2,500, he built the noble
Examination Hall, intended for a Theatre or Hall of public Academic
performances, at the fortunate moment when our 18th century
builders had just reached the zenith of their art. No room in
Dublin is more perfect in its proportions, or more rich as well as
chaste in its ornamentation. He also persuaded the Senior Fellows,
who trembled for their renewal fines, to have the College estates
re-valued, and thus added a permanent £5,000 a-year to the property
of the Corporation. We are told that he could not carry out this
eminently honest and practical reform without guaranteeing each of
the persons who sat with him on the Board against loss of income.
Not one of them was willing to risk one shilling for the future
improvement of the College estate. He showed more questionable
taste when he transformed a number of old silver cups into a
service of dinner plates, which his enemies said he intended for
his own use, and probably for that of his heirs; for he carried
them to his suburban residence at Palmerstown [Park], and used them
in his entertainments. The service is, however, still safe, and
perhaps adds as much to the dignity of College entertainments as
would the cups that were melted down. But we grieve to think what
splendid old specimens of Caroline or Queen Anne plate have thus
been lost.
So far as Hutchinson was a politician--probably accepting the
Provostship with the determination to have the University for a
pocket-borough, and so to attain a position equal to that of the
County magnates--so far his life and conduct are open to severe
criticism. In every other respect his 20 years of rule were both
brilliant and profitable to the College. He continued the great
traditions of his two predecessors, and far surpassed the men who
succeeded him for the next 40 years. But whether the opposition of
the Fellows was really irreconcilable, or whether he was himself
wanting in tact or fairness, the painful result is beyond question,
that he lived all his life at war with his subjects.
When his health began to fail in 1793, a full year before his
death, intriguing for the succession to his place began in
official circles. The Bar, who absorb so many posts outside their
profession, began to speak of the Provostship as a political
office; and had they succeeded in appointing another lawyer, we
should presently have had it put forward as an axiom, that none
but a lawyer is fit to hold a post which requires any knowledge
of the law. We hear this absurd argument repeated every day with
fatal effect. On the other hand, the Senior Fellows, who had
considered this great post as their proper prize ever since the
necessity of importing scholars from England had passed away, were
equally zealous in counteracting these schemes. Four or five times
did they send deputations to London to interview Pitt, Dundas,
Portland, and perhaps with most effect Edmund Burke and the Marquis
of Abercorn, both of whom exerted themselves warmly against the
politicians and the lawyers in favour of an academical and clerical
appointment. Even Burke himself was spoken of for the office, and
then an English Bishop of Cloyne, Bennett, who was deterred by a
threatening visit from some of the Fellows.
Meanwhile, the moment for the celebration of the Bi-Centenary of
the Foundation had arrived. The Centenary had been held in 1694,
the 100th anniversary of the first taking of degrees. The more
correct date would have been 1692. But neither date was debated for
one moment by the creatures who were thinking of nothing but the
loss of a step in their promotion, or the chances of succeeding to
a lucrative post. All remembrance of the dignity of the College and
its historic position was obscured by these personal anxieties, to
which was added, in the minds of better men, a keen sense of the
inconvenience of having a stranger and a politician as the head
of a place of learning. Had any of the three great Provosts been
guiding the councils of the College, this disgraceful omission of
so honourable a commemoration would not have been tolerated.
But from this time onward, the College, having conquered in the
great struggle concerning Hutchinson’s successor, obtained the
practical nomination, and accordingly “the Senior Major of the
Regiment,” or the next senior, was regularly promoted. By a curious
coincidence, the influence of Primate Boulter’s policy, and the
exclusion of Irishmen from Bishoprics, had also passed away, and
so we find our Provosts passed on to the Episcopal Bench, leaving
no mark upon the College, and taking no interest in ought beyond
the decent management of the routine studies of the place. The
history from the appointment of Murray to that of Bartholomew
Lloyd, in 1837, is probably the least creditable in all the three
centuries. No fine buildings were erected during these years. Even
the belfry which was taken down was not rebuilt, and the great bell
relegated to a shed in a remote corner of the College, where it
lay for fifty years, till the munificence of a Chancellor educated
at Oxford retrieved the disgrace. When the old Chapel was removed,
so careless were these men of 1798 of the memories of the dead,
that the alabaster monument of the pious founder, Luke Challoner,
was thrust aside, not even into a shed, but into a corner, where
the recumbent figure was defaced by the weather beyond recognition
within thirty years. During the rule of the great Provosts there
had been frequent bequests from rich members of the Society, who
justly held that some practical expression of gratitude was due
to the College which had conferred upon them wealth and dignity.
That spirit died out with the century. From that day onward, many
men drew £50,000 in salaries from the College, and did not return
to it one farthing beyond their (often second-rate) official work.
Constant gifts of plate from rich students, as well as Fellows,
_for the use of the College_, had replaced the tax for _argent_, at
one time levied (as it still is in some Oxford Colleges) on all who
entered the College. These honourable gifts were no longer made,
though any but a criminally supine set of rulers could easily have
kept them up by example and advice. In fact, the existing plate was
concealed in the safes of the Board-room, and never issued except
for the Provost’s private use. During these disgraceful forty
years no public display brought the College into notice except the
lavish feast to George IV. (1821). At the same time, the number of
students was very great, the incomes of Seniors in renewal fines,
and of Juniors in Tutors’ fees, larger than they ever were before
or since; yet these were the years which justly earned for the
University of Dublin the now obsolete title of “Silent Sister.”
There was a day when Oxford, for like reasons, had obtained the
kindred name of “the Widow of Sound Learning.”
And yet the moment when Murray succeeded was one more than likely
to stimulate bright spirits to do brilliant work; it was the moment
when revolutionary ideas from the Continent were making their way
into Ireland; when hot-headed politicians were speaking of National
Independence, of Republicanism, of the Rights of Man; it was the
age that bore the great poets of the early nineteenth century.
One of them, Thomas Moore, whom his greatest contemporaries have
recognised and honoured as their peer, was actually a student
of Trinity College. He was the last of a considerable series of
playwrights and poets, which proves that English studies, at
all events, were not neglected in the College course. Congreve,
Swift, Goldsmith, Parnell, Sheridan, not to speak of Brady and
Tate, and Toplady, prove what Burke mentions in acknowledging the
honorary degree offered him by Hutchinson--“I am infinitely pleased
that that learned body ... condescends to favour the unaltered
subsistence of those principles of Liberty and Morality, along
with some faint remains of that taste of Composition, which are
infused, and have always been infused, into the minds of those
who have the happiness to be instructed by it.”[96] He might have
added another all-important training in expression, which used to
be a peculiarity of the Dublin Classical School, and which Chatham
devised as a means of making his son the prince of debaters. It
consisted in the practice of free _vivâ voce_ translation from
Greek and Latin into English, wherein the fluency of expression
was rated as of equal importance with grammatical accuracy. When
we competed for Scholarships in the earlier half of the century,
we were required to know a long course of authors in this way;
and surely to express the thoughts of another language in fluent
English is the best preparation for those who desire to express
their own thinking in apt and ready words. So far, then, the
narrowness of the Governors was not able to affect the students.
Those who went into the world became practical orators of the first
rank, while those who remained in the College sank into learned
insignificance.
Yet the time, as I have said, was full of excitement, political
and social. There were wars and rumours of wars, some men’s hearts
failing them for fear, others beating with the expectation of a
millennium of Liberty. It was impossible that the great agitation
of the country should not reach the ardent spirits whom the late
Provost had permitted or encouraged to mix in the world. They had,
moreover, started a debating club, the Historical Society, which,
after various modest beginnings and failures, became of recognised
importance towards the waning of the century. The very essence
of these debating societies is to transgress sober discipline;
for while it is the duty of Governors of a College to keep their
students’ attention upon abstract science, pure philosophy, and
classical languages, it is the one aim of debaters to avoid such
subjects, and choose those of present and burning interest.
Moreover, in those days the modern engines of the press and the
platform had not accustomed men to discount the mendacities, the
false passion, the gross exaggerations of political oratory.
Generous natures were more easily carried away than they now
are, when the poison and the antidote succeed one another in the
columns of the same newspaper. Wolfe Tone found even among the
Fellows two distinguished men, John Stack and Whitley Stokes--these
family-names have been for more than two centuries frequent in
the honour-rolls of the College--who adopted the views of the
United Irishmen, and admitted the principle of making Ireland
an independent nation. It is hard to avoid the observation that
Boulter’s policy of filling every post of importance with English
placemen must have been a powerful agent in turning the opinions
of the professional men in Ireland in this direction. Presently
the College was seized with military ardour; a yeomanry corps was
established, in which four companies were commanded by four lay
Fellows, for the purpose of aiding the Government in the impending
crisis. But along with the ardour for amateur soldiering so
universal among civilians, there crept in the feeling that, with
arms in their hands, men should secure not only peace and order in
the country, but some recognition of the claims of Ireland, so long
neglected and postponed to the most vulgar English interests. One
of the captains was, in fact, already an United Irishman, though
he seems to have been deterred from going as far as Wolfe Tone
would lead him, by Tone’s open assertion that the liberties of the
country must be attained even through arms and blood.
Presently it became necessary to revive the dormant Statute
forbidding students to attend any political meetings; and when some
of the scholars went so far as to avow publicly that they were
United Irishmen, in the sense then considered seditious, and one
member at least of the Board, who was also M.P. for the University,
openly declared himself opposed to taking extreme measures against
them, the time seemed come for a formal Visitation. In all this
difficult and dangerous passage of the history of the College
the Provost is hardly mentioned. The result of the great battle
between the Dons and the politicians upon Hutchinson’s death had
resulted, as has been said, in the appointment of the Vice-Provost,
Murray, a respectable, modest, benevolent old man,[97] wholly unfit
to guide the counsels of the Board, or to lead back the wilder
students into the paths of discretion or common sense. Moreover,
the ultra-Protestant party were in such panic at the state of
the country as to make them cruel in their punishments. The
Vice-Chancellor was Lord Clare, a very strong and uncompromising
member of the Protestant ascendency, who all through his life was
perfectly consistent in advocating the English supremacy, and in
crushing out all Irish aspirations, even with the halter and the
sword. He had been baulked in his policy of repression by the
admission of Roman Catholics to Degrees in Trinity College, carried
in 1793 by an Act of Parliament, but which would not have been put
into effect in that year but for the stout action of Dr. Miller,
who, as Senior Master Non-Regent, stopped all the conferring
of Degrees till the Vice-Chancellor consented to remit the old
oath against Popery. The facts, which are worth knowing in their
details, are thus stated by Dr. Stubbs:--
When the first Commencement day after the passing of the Act
of Parliament arrived, the Letters Patent altering the College
Statutes had not been prepared, and consequently, although
the declaration had been abolished by Act of Parliament, the
corresponding oath remained. Lord Clare was well known to be
opposed to the admission of Roman Catholics to Degrees, and
he presided as Vice-Chancellor of the University, and it was
expected that he would place every impediment in his power to
the relaxation which had been granted by the change in the
law. Mr. Miller, who was called upon to act as Senior Master
Non-Regent, declined to take his place until he had been formally
elected by the Senate, according to the letter of the University
Regulations. After some opposition to this proceeding on the part
of the Vice-Chancellor, this legal formality was carried out, and
Mr. Miller took his seat as one of the Caput.
The usual form at Commencements at that time was, that the
Proctor should first supplicate for the Degrees to be conferred,
and obtain the suffrages of the Senate, after which being done,
the oath and the declaration were read. On this occasion the
Vice-Chancellor called on the Proctor to commence by reading
the statutable oath. So far no objection was made; but when
that officer proceeded to recite the declaration as of old,
Miller immediately interfered, and reminded Lord Clare that this
declaration had been abrogated by Act of Parliament, and assured
him that if it were then insisted on he would, in his capacity as
a member of the Caput, prevent any Degrees from being conferred.
Lord Clare was unprepared for this proceeding, and threatened
to adjourn the _Comitia_. However, after referring to the Act,
which Mr. Miller had by him, and after a consultation with Mr.
Wolfe, the Attorney-General, who was present in the Hall for the
purpose of taking the Degree of Doctor of Laws, Lord Clare soon
saw that the clause in question, although conditional in the
preamble, was peremptory in its enactment, and that the Senior
Master Non-Regent was right in point of law. The declaration was
not read, and the Commencement proceeded. Letters Patent were
shortly afterwards passed making the necessary alteration in the
College Statutes, and from that time Roman Catholics have taken
lay Degrees without restriction.
It may therefore well be imagined that Lord Clare came in no very
good humour to visit the College, and that he probably desired
to show to the public that the Act of 1793 had been followed by
the consequences which the old ascendency party had foreseen, and
therefore urged against it. The second Visitor was Dr. Duigenan,
a man intimate with the College in former years, and a very good
judge of the characters of the Fellows, now that the old quarrels
and animosities with the late Provost and his party had been
superseded by far graver questions. I will let Dr. Stubbs narrate
the proceedings in his own words.
The Vice-Chancellor, on opening the proceedings, intimated
that the object of the Visitors was to inquire whether the
disaffection imputed to the College was founded in reality, or
was a mere rumour or surmise; and he announced his intention to
punish with severity any of the members of the College who should
be proved to be encouragers or abettors of treason or sedition.
The roll of the College was called, and to every member, as he
answered his name, an oath was tendered, and when sworn he was
examined as to his knowledge of unlawful societies existing in
College. Dr. Browne was asked as to his vote at the Board in
the case of Ardagh and Power, and he acknowledged that he had
considered expulsion too severe a measure, and therefore had,
with two other Senior Fellows, voted for the rustication of the
two Students for a year as a suitable punishment, and that he had
publicly stated his opinion after the meeting of the Governing
Body had terminated. For this open criticism of the decision of
the Board he was strongly rebuked by Lord Clare.
Whitley Stokes, when questioned by the Vice-Chancellor, denied
that he knew of the existence of societies of United Irishmen in
the College, or of any illegal or secret societies within the
walls. He admitted that he had been a member of the Society of
United Irishmen in 1791, before their revolutionary tendencies
had been developed; but he stated that from that period he had
altogether dissociated himself from them. He admitted that he
had professionally visited, as a physician, a man who was well
known for his treasonable proclivities, but who was very ill and
very poor, but always in company of a third person, lest his
action might be misrepresented. He had also subscribed to a fund
which was formed to relieve the necessities of two members of the
United Irishmen who were in prison. The most reliable evidence
was given on Dr. Stokes’ behalf that he had used his influence
among the Students, which was considerable, to induce some of
them to withdraw from treasonable associations, and to enroll
their names among the members of the College corps, and that
his efforts had been successful. In fact, Lord Clare was forced
to admit the concurring testimony of so many respectable and
independent witnesses in Dr. Stokes’ favour; at the same time he
stated that he was a well-meaning man who had been led into great
indiscretions.
The Students soon appeared to be reluctant to take the oath,
partly because they declined to implicate others, partly because
they were unwilling to make admissions which would criminate
themselves. At the end of the first day there were fifty who had
refused to be sworn. In consequence of this, Lord Clare intimated
on the following day that if any of the Students who had been
themselves implicated in the proceedings of these treasonable
societies would come forward and admit the fact, and would
promise that in future they would separate themselves from them,
the Visitors would pass over their previous complicity with
these associations. Among those who had first refused to take
the oath was Thomas Moore. However, when the Vice-Chancellor had
explained the matter to the Students, Moore complied, and denied
that he had any knowledge of treasonable practices or societies
in College. Many of the other Students who had at first declined
to be sworn, on the second and third days of the Visitation came
forward and confessed their errors. The result of the inquiry
of the Visitors was the establishment of the fact that there
were four committees of United Irishmen in the College, the
secretaries of which were Robert Emmett, Peter M‘Laughlin, the
younger Corbett, and Flynn. The sentence of the Visitors was to
the effect that Thomas Robinson, Scholar, who had lent his rooms
for the meetings of the United Irishmen, and who had in his sworn
evidence before the Visitors prevaricated in his answers, was
expelled from the College.
William Corbett, Dacre Hamilton, John Carroll, and David Shea,
Scholars; and Thomas Corbett, Peter M‘Laughlin, Arthur Newport,
John Browne, and George Keough, Students, were also expelled for
contumacy in refusing to be sworn, and because they had fallen
into the gravest suspicion, in the opinion of the Visitors, of
being acquainted with, and partakers in, a seditious conspiracy.
Robert Emmett, Thomas Flynn, John Penefather Lamphier, Michael
Farrall, Edward Barry, Thomas Bennett, Bernard Killen, and
Patrick Fitzgerald, were expelled for contumacy in refusing to
appear before the Visitors, and because there was the gravest
suspicion that they were acquainted with, and had been partakers
in, the conspiracy.
Martin John Ferrall was expelled because he admitted that he was
acquainted with, and had been engaged in, this conspiracy, and
because he had not informed the authorities of it, nor had been
willing to do so.
As to Dr. Whitley Stokes, the Visitors decided that because he
had confessed that he had some intercourse with the heads of
the conspiracy he should be precluded from acting as College
Tutor, and should for three years be disqualified from sitting
as a member of the Board, and from being co-opted to a Senior
Fellowship.
These sentences were confirmed on the 1st of May, 1798, by the
Duke of Gloucester, as Chancellor of the University.
This drastic treatment, whether just or not, seems to have
enabled the College to tide over the crisis of 1798, and to
emerge after the Union into that period when it reflects the
dulness and prosperity of the country. The last Provost of the
century, Kearney, is the type of his day. “This Provost,” says
Taylor, with unconscious naiveté, “was always remarkable for
his close attention to whatever might be considered for his
improvement.” His only notable act was to refuse, _with tears in
his eyes_, the resignation offered him, on the ground of religious
difficulties, by the pious John Walker, and to expel him publicly
next day. The same man connived at a number of his Fellows being
married, in formal violation of their oath. Over against these
unwholesome features, and the stagnation in the publishing of solid
intellectual work, must be set the undoubted fact that there were
men of sound learning and research among the Fellows. Mat. Young,
Barrett, Thos. Elrington, Rich. Graves, Geo. Miller, were all men
of respectable attainments in their day; and if the classical
school produced no compeer of the expelled John Walker, it was
at this apparently obscure period that the University of Dublin
exchanged its reputation as a school of theology, of eloquence,
and of style, for the reputation in Mathematics and Physics which
was its only distinction in this century up to the reformations of
Bartholomew Lloyd.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter ending)]
FOOTNOTES:
[87] _Cf._ Stubbs, p. 161.
[88] Dunton speaks in 1699 of the Provost’s House as a fine
structure in process of construction. This, if he reports
correctly, must have been some residence intermediate between
the old “Provost’s lodgings,” on the south side of the original
quadrangle, and the present house. But there is no other allusion
to such a house.
[89] He obtained from the Trust of Erasmus Smith, of which he was
one of the administrators, large sums for the founding of new
Chairs--nearly £800 per annum, which was distributed in salaries of
£100 to £250.
[90] I conclude this from the last chapter (27) of the Statutes,
which ordains that _three_ authentic copies shall be deposited (1)
as safely as possible in the archives of the College, (2) with the
Lord Deputy of Ireland, (3) with the Chancellor of the University.
The copy held by Strafford when Lord Deputy is now in private hands
in Dublin. What has become of Laud’s copy we do not know; perhaps
it is at Lambeth. There is no provision for taking any other copy
from these; nay, rather, the opening sentence of the chapter
ordains that lost any should offend against them from ignorance,
they shall be read out publicly in the Chapel at the beginning of
each Term by the Deans, in the presence of the whole College.
[91] So have Mornington’s _Te Deum_ and _Jubilate_, composed for
the service on the following Sunday. The March, however, a trifling
composition, survives.
[92] _Cf._ the list in Stubbs’ _History_, p. 222.
[93] This was the lineal descendant of the Wm. Hawkins who in 1672
had got a 99 years’ lease of this land, then waste, for the purpose
of reclaiming it and building a quay. The Bishop had interest
enough with the Board in 1771 to stay the resumption, and even to
obtain a new lease of a valuable property from the College estate,
which his descendants still enjoy. In 1799 this lease had yet 33
years to run--hence a 60 years’ lease.
[94] Provost Baldwin had asserted this right of veto, and had
nominated against the majority, not without protest, but without
being challenged at a Visitation.
[95] “The effects [of the Provost’s duel] are already visible;
scarce a week passes without a duel between some of the students;
some of them have been slain, others maimed; the College Park is
publicly made the place for learning the exercise of the pistol;
shooting at marks by the gownsmen is everyday practice; the very
chambers of the College frequently resound with explosions of
pistols. The Provost has introduced a fencing-master into the
College, and assigned him the Convocation or Senate House [over
the gate] of the College as a school, to teach the gownsmen
the use of the sword, though this is strictly forbidden by the
Statutes.”--_Lachrymæ_, p. 109. Is the first part of this true?
Surely the names of students killed or maimed in duels would have
been paraded before us in the pamphlets of the time. The Provost’s
duel with Mr. Wm. Doyle, arising from anonymous attacks attributed
to the latter, is described at length in the Dublin papers of 17th
and 19th January, 1775.
[96] I quote from Dr. Stubbs, extract, _op. cit._ p. 264. It
appears from Duigenan’s _Lachrymæ_, p. 145, that in Hutchinson’s
time £200 a-year was voted by the Board of Erasmus Smith for Prizes
in Composition only.
[97] He was so popular in Dublin as to receive the honorary freedom
of the city.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]
CHAPTER V.
DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
“_Semel arreptos nunquam dimittet honores._”
MOTTO FROM THE EARLIEST GOLD MEDAL.
1792-1892.
Roman Catholics were not permitted to take Degrees in the
University of Dublin up to the year 1793. By an Act of the Irish
Parliament of that year, followed by a Royal Statute of the College
in 1794, this disability was removed, but neither Roman Catholics
nor Protestant Dissenters could at that time, nor for nearly
eighty years after, be elected to Fellowships or Scholarships on
the foundation of the College. In 1843 an attempt was made to
contest the law on this point. Mr. Denis Caulfield Heron, a Roman
Catholic Sizar, became a candidate for Scholarship in 1843, and
was examined in conformity with the Statutes. There were sixteen
vacancies, and his answering would have placed him fifth in order
of merit, but the electors did not consider him to be eligible
on account of his religion. Mr. Heron appealed to the Visitors,
who declined to enter into an inquiry on the subject. He then, in
Trinity Term 1844, applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench to grant
a _mandamus_ to force the Visitors to hear his appeal. This, after
argument, was granted by the Court in June, 1845. In accordance
with this command, the Visitors held a Court of Appeal in December,
1845, and they heard the arguments of eminent counsel on both
sides, aided by their assessor, the Right Hon. Richard Keatinge.
Their decision was to the effect that, considering the precise and
pointed language of the Act of 1793, and the whole body of College
Charters and Statutes, it was the clear intention of the Crown, by
the Royal Statute of 1794, merely to give to Roman Catholics the
benefit of a liberal education and the right to obtain Degrees,
but without allowing them to become members of the Corporation of
Trinity College, or in any manner changing its Protestant character.
In order that the students who were not members of the then
Established Church should not be debarred from the advantages
of Scholarships, the Board in 1854 decided to establish a class
of “Non-Foundation Scholars,” which should not be restricted to
any religious denomination. The Scholarships were awarded as the
results of the same examination by which the Foundation Scholars
were elected, and were confined to those whose answering at the
Scholarship Examination was superior to that of the lowest of those
who were elected to Foundation places. The tenure and the value of
the Non-Foundation Scholarships was the same as of those on the
Foundation, and they were awarded for good answering either in
Mathematics or in Classics.
Matters remained in this state until the year 1873, when the late
Mr. Fawcett, afterwards Postmaster-General, succeeded in passing
an Act of Parliament, 36 Vic. c. 21, with the full assent of the
College authorities, which abolished Tests in the University of
Dublin, except in the case of Professors and Lecturers in the
Faculty of Theology, and opened all offices and appointments in the
College to every person, irrespective of his religious opinions.
At the time of the Union with Great Britain, in 1800, the
University lost one of its two members, but it continued to
return one member to the Imperial Parliament, the electors being,
as before, the Provost, Fellows, and Foundation Scholars. This
constituency, taking account of minors, fell much short of one
hundred. By the Reform Act, in 1833, the second member was restored
to the University of Dublin, but the constituency was enlarged
so as to include ex-Scholars, Masters of Arts, and Doctors in
the several faculties, and special Commencements were held in
the following November, at which a very large number of Masters’
degrees were conferred; the number of registered electors at once
rose to 1,570. The constituency now numbers 4,334.
The history of Trinity College during the first half of the
nineteenth century offers but little to note, apart from the great
advances which were made in the studies of the University and the
Professional Schools, and which will be hereafter detailed in their
proper places. The increase in the funds of the College admitted,
and the requirements of the College demanded, an augmentation
in the number of Junior Fellows from fifteen to eighteen. This
increase was made by a Royal Statute in 1808. It was enacted that
there should be no election to any of these Fellowships in any
year in which there was a natural vacancy, and that in the case of
no such vacancy happening, one of these new Fellowships should be
filled until the number of three was in this way completed. These
three additions were made in the years 1808, 1809, and 1811. In
the years 1802, 1803, 1804, and 1806 there had been no Fellowship
vacant at the time of the annual elections, and, but for this
addition, from 1802 to 1811 there would have been seven years
without a Fellowship Examination.
At this period, although the Statutes of the College forbade the
marriage of the Fellows, yet it was well known that for a good
many years many of them more or less openly violated the law of
the College in this respect. In some cases their wives continued
to be known by their maiden names; and the public understood this,
and did not discountenance it. In 1811 a new and very stringent
Statute was enacted, which required every Fellow on his election
to swear that he was then unmarried, and that, should he marry at
any time of his tenure of Fellowship, he would within three months
inform the Provost. This practically required all future married
Fellows to resign. An exception, however, was made in favour of
the existing Fellows, whether married or not in 1811. The Celibacy
Statute, as it was called, remained in force until 1840, when it
was repealed, and all restrictions upon marriage removed. This
repeal was not effected without considerable agitation, which
commenced in 1836. The value of the benefices in the gift of the
College had fallen at least twenty-five per cent., in consequence
of the commutation of tithe payable by the occupier of land into
a rent charge payable by his landlord. In the greater part of the
South of Ireland where the anti-tithe war had raged, and where the
clergy had found it impossible to collect the revenues of their
benefices, the change was decidedly advantageous. In the North of
Ireland, however, where the College livings lay, no such resistance
to the payment of tithes had been experienced, and consequently the
change was a loss to the clergy. This, added to the poor’s rate,
which was then introduced, and the ecclesiastical tax upon livings,
which was at that time first imposed, had so greatly reduced the
value of the College benefices, that many of them failed to attract
the Fellows. In addition to this, the income of the Junior Fellows
had become more equable and more certain, and their labours had
diminished in consequence of the change which was effected by the
adoption of a division of tutorial fees and of tutorial lectures
in 1835; consequently few of the Junior Fellows were disposed to
change an agreeable literary life in Dublin for a retirement in the
country, even though they should be thus enabled to marry.
In February, 1836, the Provost and Senior Fellows, two only
dissenting, agreed to join the Junior Fellows in an application
to the Lord Lieutenant for a repeal of the obnoxious Statute,
suggesting, however, that the six most Junior of the Fellows should
be exempted from the permission to marry. The Earl of Mulgrave,
then Viceroy, declined to recommend the change. At the end of
1838 a further memorial was presented to the representative of
the Crown, praying that the Fellows above the lower nine of the
body should be allowed to marry. The Provost and Senior Fellows
concurred in the prayer of the memorial, stipulating, however,
that the plan should be accompanied by such measures as would
prevent the College livings from being declined by the whole body
of Fellows. On the arrival of a new Viceroy (Lord Fortescue) in
1839, a memorial was presented to him by the College asking for a
repeal of the Celibacy Statute. To this there was a considerable
opposition on the part of the great body of the Scholars and
prospective Fellowship candidates, on the ground that the existing
Fellows would be settled for life in the College, and the vacancies
for fresh elections would become very rare, and thus the highest
mathematical and literary studies in the College would suffer. It
was known, also, that the Archbishop of Armagh, Lord John George
Beresford, who was then Vice-Chancellor, and who took a warm
interest in the welfare of the College, was strongly opposed to
the repeal of this Statute. In the end the Government was guided
by the advice of Dr. Dickinson, afterwards Bishop of Meath, and in
1840 the Celibacy Statute was repealed; ten new Fellowships were
added, one to be elected each year; the six junior of the Fellows
were excluded from the emoluments of the tutors, and restricted to
the statutable emoluments of a Junior Fellow (about £37 a-year,
with rooms and dinner in the Hall); and the number of Tutor Fellows
was increased from fifteen to nineteen, the average income of the
tutors being thus diminished by 21 per cent.
It could scarcely be expected that an institution like Trinity
College, which at that time had many political enemies, should
escape a searching inquiry at the hands of a Royal Commission;
and accordingly, in April, 1851, a full and minute investigation
was made into the working of the College, the Commissioners being
Archbishop Whately, Lord Chancellor Brady, the Earl of Rosse,
the Bishop of Cork, Doctor Mountiford Longfield, and Edward J.
Cooper, Esq. The Commissioners reported in April, 1853, and in a
manner highly favourable to the College. They found “that numerous
improvements of an important character have been from time to
time introduced by the authorities of the College, and that the
general state of the College is satisfactory. There is great
activity and efficiency in the different departments, and the
spirit of improvement has been especially shown in the changes
which have been introduced in the course of education, to adapt
it to the requirements of the age.” They ended in recommending
some twenty-five changes. But they took care to add that these
recommendations did not involve any great or fundamental alteration
in the arrangements of the University, or in the system of
education pursued in it. “From its present state,” they add, “and
from what has already been effected by the authorities of the
College, we do not believe such changes to be required.”
Most of these recommendations have since that time been carried
out by Royal Statutes, which were obtained at the request of the
Provost and Senior Fellows, and in the application for which they
were strengthened by the report of the Commissioners. 1. The
Statutes underwent a complete revision. 2. Senior Fellows ceased to
hold Professorships. 3. The Board obtained power to vary, with the
consent of the Visitors, the subjects prescribed for the Fellowship
Examinations, and to regulate the mode in which the Examination
should be conducted, so that any Junior Fellow who holds a
Professorship may now be summoned to examine in the subject of his
Professorship. 4. Each vacancy for Fellowship or Scholarship is
now filled by a separate vote of the electors, and the successful
candidates are placed in the order of merit. 5. The fees payable
to the tutors are no longer divided irrespectively of the number
of pupils of each tutor, but a proportion of the fees paid by each
student is paid directly to his College tutor, and the remainder
paid into a common fund, from which certain Professorships are
endowed, which are tenable by Junior Fellows alone. 6. The general
obligation to take Holy Orders is no longer imposed on the Fellows,
the number of Lay Fellows being at first increased from three to
five. 7. Ex-Fellows are now eligible for the Regius Professorship
of Divinity. 8. The Professors of Modern Languages are now elected
as other Professors, and these languages may now be selected by
students of the Sophister Classes and for the B.A. degree in lieu
of Greek and Latin. 9. The Board and Visitors have now the power
of altering the subjects for the Scholarship Examination, and by a
recent Statute the tenure of the Scholarship has been limited to
five years. 10. Twenty Senior and twenty Junior Exhibitions of £25
each tenable for two years have been founded, and they are open to
students without respect to creed. 11. No distinction is now made
between Pensioners, Fellow Commoners, and Noblemen as to the course
of education required for the B.A. degree. 12. The formal exercises
then required for the different degrees have been discontinued,
and (except the M.A. degree) all the higher degrees have been made
real tests of merit. 13. Full power to admit readers to the College
Library has been conferred upon the Provost and Senior Fellows. 14.
An auditor of the College is now appointed by the Visitors, and
an audited balance sheet and account of income and expenditure is
annually presented to them, and is open to the inspection of all
members of the Corporation. 15. The Bursar is now paid by salary
and not by fees, and local land agents have been appointed in cases
in which the occupying tenants hold directly from the College.
16. The College officers formerly paid by fees are now paid by
salaries in proportion to the services performed by them. 17. There
has been a gradual reduction in the number of Non-Tutor Fellows
created by the Statute of 1840. These form the great majority of
the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners.
In addition to these alterations some considerable improvements
were effected by the Royal Statute of the 18th Victoria. The whole
of the College Statutes were carefully revised, and the obsolete
and injurious enactments were repealed. The power of assigning or
of transferring pupils from one tutor to another, which Provost
Hutchinson attempted to exercise in an arbitrary manner, was
removed from the Provost and vested in the Board; and to the Board,
with the consent of the Visitors, was given the power, which they
had not before, of founding new Professorships and offices, and
of assigning salaries to be paid to them from the revenues of the
College.
Immediately after these powers had been granted by Letters
Patent, the Board and Visitors acted in conformity with their
new authority. In 1855 a decree was passed dividing the subjects
of the Fellowship Examination into four--Mathematics, Classics
(including Hebrew), Mental and Moral Sciences, and Experimental
Physics; the time for the examination was greatly extended. Science
scholarships were founded, and the number of days of examination,
both for classical and science scholarships, increased; and in the
same year a similar decree regulated the salary and duties of the
Regius Professor of Greek, and founded new Professorships of Arabic
and of English Literature. In 1856 certain salaries of College
officers were fixed, and the salaries of the Professor of Geology
and of Erasmus Smith’s Professor of Natural Philosophy (when held
by a Junior Fellow) were regulated. In 1858 a decree was passed
which transferred all fees hitherto payable to College officers to
the general funds of the College, and assigned fixed salaries in
lieu of them. Two Senior Tutorships, each with a salary of £800,
were founded; the salary of the Examinerships held by Non-Tutor
Fellows was raised to £100 per annum; Classical Honour Lectureships
were instituted, and a Professorship of Sanscrit and Comparative
Philology. In 1862 two Professorships of Modern Languages were
established, the salaries of the holders being paid out of the
funds of the College--the Act of Parliament 18 and 19 Victoria,
cap. 82, having deprived the College of two annual sums of £92
6s. 2d. each, which had been granted by the 41 George III., cap.
32, out of the Consolidated Fund for this purpose. The same Act
dispossessed the College of its earliest, and only, subvention from
the State, which was granted by Queen Elizabeth--an annual charge
of £358 16s. on the revenues of Ireland; the grounds assigned
for this deprivation being the removal of the stamp duties on
Degrees,[98] which had been imposed on the College only thirteen
years before. These duties (which have long since been abolished in
England) were £1 on matriculation, £3 for the degree of B.A., and
£6 for any other degree.
The University--consisting of the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor,
Doctors in the several faculties, and Masters of Arts--having
been governed for more than two hundred years by certain rules
or Statutes which had, by lapse of time, become in many respects
obsolete and unsuited to the present state of the University, and
doubts having been raised as to whether the Provost and Senior
Fellows of the College had the power to alter or amend these rules,
Letters Patent were asked for and granted by the Crown (July 24,
1857), confirming all former powers, usages, and privileges,
giving the Board power to make laws concerning the conferring of
Degrees, provided that such laws should be afterwards confirmed
by the University Senate, enacting that no “grace” should be
proposed to that body which had not been first adopted by the
Board; incorporating the University Senate under the name of the
Chancellor, Masters, and Doctors of the University of Dublin, and
giving the Senate power to elect the Chancellor from three names to
be submitted to them by the Board, who relinquished their old right
in this respect. Further Letters Patent were obtained in 1858,
which enabled the Board to commute the fees of certain offices for
lesser salaries, and to forego fees hitherto payable to them for
Degrees which were in future to be applied to the benefit of the
College; and out of the funds so transferred fourteen Studentships
were founded, at a salary of £100 per annum for each, tenable for
seven years, to be given every year at the Degree Examination; two
new offices (Senior Tutorships), to be held by Junior Fellows,
were created; two of the Non-Tutor Fellowships were merged among
the Tutor Fellowships, and the remaining four were gradually
discontinued. The Board was given power to sanction new rules for
the distribution of the tutorial fees, and a clause was added
enabling candidates for Fellowships to attend only on the days on
which the courses in which they compete are examined in, and giving
other powers to the Board.
In conformity with the powers granted to the Board by the Letters
Patent of 1857, in December of the following year they remodelled,
with the approval of the Senate, all the University rules with
respect to Degrees. Further Letters Patent were obtained in 1865,
rectifying defects in the existing Statutes, specially with respect
to the examination for Fellowships, and in 1868 for the creation
of a Regius Professor of Surgery. In 1870 the Provost and Senior
Fellows founded a Professor of Latin, under the same regulations
which prevailed with regard to the Professor of Greek; and at the
same time they founded forty Exhibitions of £25 each, tenable
for two years, twenty Senior and twenty Junior, to aid deserving
students in the prosecution of their undergraduate course. In 1871
the Professorships of Ancient History and of Zoology were founded,
and in 1872 a Professorship of Comparative Anatomy.
The Act of Parliament amending the law with regard to promissory
oaths, and that of 1873 abolishing religious tests in the
University of Dublin, necessitated further changes in the Royal
Statutes of the College, and these were effected by Letters Patent
of 1874, which also founded the Academic Council, and transferred
to it, from the Provost and Senior Fellows, the nomination to
Professorships, and gave to it, concurrently with the Board, the
power to regulate the studies of the College.
This Council consists of sixteen members and the Provost--four
elected by the Senior Fellows, four by the Junior, four by the
Professors who are not Fellows, and four by the Senate at large
(excluding those who are already represented). The representatives
of each class hold office for four years, are elected at the same
time, and vacate office in rotation. The electors can give all
their votes to one candidate, or they may distribute them among
the candidates as they think fit. The election to Professorships
in the Divinity School, of Medical Professors founded by Act of
Parliament, and of Professors of private foundation the appointment
of which is by the wills of the founders vested in the Provost and
Senior Fellows, remains with the Board.
In 1851 a very important Act of Parliament was passed, which
extended the leasing powers of the College in respect to the
estates belonging to the Corporation. Prior to that year it was
precluded from giving leases of the lands belonging to the College
for a longer period than twenty-one years, except in cities, where
sites for building might be leased for forty years. The rent to
be reserved should be equal to one-half of the true value of
the lands, _communibus annis_, at the time of making the lease.
The Provost and Senior Fellows, however, might grant leases for
twenty-one years at a rent equal to that which was hitherto payable
out of the lands, even though it was less than half the value.
The custom was for the College to renew these leases when a few
years had expired, on the payment of fines which were in some
cases considerable, and which were divided among the members of
the Governing Body of the College. These renewal fines formed the
principal part of the incomes of the Senior Fellows. By the Act of
1851 (14 and 15 Victoria, cap. 128) additional powers of leasing
were granted up to ninety-nine years without fines, reserving a
minimum rent of three-fourths of the annual value; making, however,
a reduction in respect to the tenant’s interest in an unexpired
lease when it was surrendered. Also, powers of granting leases in
perpetuity were given to the Board on the surrender by the tenants
of the existing leases. These perpetuity rents were fixed by a
regulation contained in the Statute, and were variable from time
to time, at intervals of ten years, according to the changes in
the prices of certain agricultural commodities. Renewal fines were
abolished, and the Provost and Senior Fellows were compensated
for the loss of them by a fixed annual sum of £800 paid to each
of them out of the revenues of the College. Consequent upon the
changes which have been indicated above, the Senior Fellows
relinquished their claims to an annual sum, which, according to the
Report of the University Commissioners, amounted to about £2,650,
their official salaries being now fixed at sums according to the
duties of the office; and, on the whole, the income of each Senior
Fellow is on the average about £363 less than it was in 1851. The
difference has been employed in the foundation of Studentships and
Exhibitions, the annual charge for which is about £2,000.
The most serious danger with which Trinity College has been
threatened during the present century arose from an attempt which
the Government of the day made in 1873 to deprive it of its
University powers, and of a large portion of its endowments. A
Bill was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Gladstone
for the purpose of establishing one University in Ireland, and an
essential part of its proposals was that Trinity College should
cease to be the University of Dublin, and that another Mixed Body
should take its place. That the power of conferring Degrees and
regulating Professorships in this University, and of appointing
and dismissing the Professors, should be vested in a Council of
twenty-eight members, of which Trinity College should have the
power of nominating only two. It proposed that there should be a
number of affiliated Colleges in the country, and that they too
should be represented on this Council, so that a College able to
matriculate fifty students should send one representative, and a
College able to matriculate one hundred and fifty should send two
members, and that no College, however numerous its students, should
be represented by a larger number of members. It was, moreover,
another essential part of this measure, that neither Mental and
Moral Science nor History should form any part of the Professorial
instruction or of the University Examinations. In order to assist
in making up an endowment of £50,000 per annum for the purposes
of this University, it was proposed to suppress Queen’s College,
Galway, and allocate the £10,000 a-year of its endowment; to put a
charge of £12,000 annually on the estates of Trinity College; and
to transfer, moreover, the Degree fees, which are now paid into the
general funds of this College, to the Governing Body of the new
University. The buildings, the library, and the remainder of the
endowments were to belong to the College, which in other respects
should remain, as at present, as a teaching institution.
It is needless to say that this Bill, if carried into a law, would
have ruined Trinity College. A large number of its students would
have been withdrawn, for they could have the prestige of the
Degree of the University of Dublin without being members of the
College, and the fees which they at present pay to the support of
the College and its teachers would have been no longer available.
It is not too much to assert that the College would have lost 33
per cent. of its available revenue, and that it would have been
impossible to maintain it on the income which remained.
Fortunately for the College, the Roman Catholic Bishops opposed the
plan of the Government, which did not include the endowment of a
Roman Catholic College, and which did not meet their demand for a
Roman Catholic University. After a debate lasting for four nights,
the Government proposal was rejected on the 11th of March, 1873, by
a majority of three.
There were two important occasions upon which entertainments on
a scale of considerable grandeur were given during the present
century in the Hall of Trinity College. The first was in 1821, on
the occasion of the visit of George the Fourth to Ireland, when the
King honoured the College with his presence at a great banquet. His
Majesty was received in the Library, where addresses were presented
to him, and after receiving them most graciously he was conducted
through a passage made for the occasion into the Examination Hall,
where were collected at dinner a considerable number of the Irish
nobility, the Bishops of the Irish Church, the Judges, and many
of the most influential persons in the country, along with the
distinguished suite which attended the King.
His Majesty afterwards expressed himself as much gratified by the
reception which he met with in the College. On this occasion the
scholars were entertained at the same time in the Dining Hall,
under the presidency of Dr. Sadlier, then a Junior Fellow, and
afterwards Provost. It was in connection with this visit of the
King that the University of Dublin asserted and secured its right
of precedency after the Corporation of the City.
The second occasion was in August, 1835, when the British
Association made its first visit to Dublin; Dr. Bartholomew Lloyd,
then Provost, was the President of the Association, and some of
the leading scientific men of England and of the Continent were
present. A considerable number of these were accommodated during
the meeting with chambers in the College, and had their breakfasts
and dinners in the Hall. A great banquet was, moreover, given to
the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (the Earl of Mulgrave), and to about
300 members of the Association, in the Examination Hall. The guests
assembled before dinner in the College Library, and His Excellency
took the opportunity of conferring the honour of Knighthood upon
the Professor of Astronomy, William Rowan Hamilton. This was
the first instance in which an Irish Viceroy had so honoured an
individual for eminent scientific merit. At the dinner which
followed, Professor Whewell of Cambridge remarked in his speech
that it was then just one hundred and thirty-six years since a
great man in another University knelt down before his Sovereign
and rose up Sir Isaac Newton. Among the foreign visitors were De
Toqueville, Montalembert, Barclay de Tolly, L. Agassiz, and many
others.
The general history of Trinity College during the nineteenth
century would be incomplete if some reference were not made to a
matter which elicited considerable public feeling at the time,
but which is now almost forgotten. On the 12th of March, 1858,
the Earl of Eglinton, who had been very popular as Viceroy of
Ireland on a previous occasion, returned as Lord Lieutenant on
a change of Ministry. It was quite a holiday in Dublin. Several
hundreds of the students had assembled within the enclosed space
in front of the College (which was at that time larger than it
is now), and had crowded out into the street, for the purpose of
witnessing the procession in its progress up College Green and
Dame Street to the Castle. For some time previous to the approach
of the Lord Lieutenant, they amused themselves by letting off
squibs and crackers, and by throwing orange peel and other similar
missiles at the crowd outside, as well as at the police. The
Junior Dean, apprehending some ill results if the disposition
and temper of the students were misunderstood by the people and
by the police, went out amongst them, and begged that they would
not resent these demonstrations on the part of the students. No
political display was intended by them, and consequently if good
humour were preserved on both sides all would pass off quietly.
Colonel Browne, who was in command of the police, on two or three
occasions went inside the railings to reason with the students;
his reception on each occasion was courteous, and he was cheered
by the College men. From the period when the Viceregal procession
came in sight, there was a suspension of the bombardment from
within the College rails. As the Lord Lieutenant passed by, there
was very little political manifestation by the students. After
the procession had passed, those within the railings commenced
again to throw crackers, squibs, and oranges, and the confusion
increased. Colonel Browne rode up, and in vain endeavoured to be
heard. He was struck in the face by an orange, amidst a shout of
laughter from the students and from the crowds in the street.
At this time he seemed to lose his temper, and went to Colonel
Griffiths commanding the Scots Greys, who were posted near the Bank
of Ireland, and asked him to charge. Colonel Griffiths laughed,
and asked whom he was to charge--was it a parcel of schoolboys?
Colonel Browne then brought a party of the mounted police in front
of the soldiers, and drew up immediately in their rear a body of
the foot police, with their batons in their hands. At this juncture
the Junior Dean, foreseeing that something serious was likely to
ensue if the students did not at once disperse, called on such
of them as were outside the College railings to come within the
College gate, and he succeeded in getting a considerable number
of them inside the College, and had the gates closed. Many of the
students, however, were unable to get inside--some were with the
Junior Dean inside the railings and some in the street. Immediately
after this Colonel Browne ordered the mounted police to Charge.
The outer gates of the enclosure were forced open; the police,
mounted as well as on foot, at once rushed on the students within
the railings (the statues of Burke and Goldsmith had not at that
time been erected); they cut at them with their sabres, rode over
them, and the unmounted men used their batons in every direction
and indiscriminately as regarded the persons with whom they came
in contact. The students had no means of defending themselves, the
Junior Dean having early in the proceedings induced them to give up
to him the sticks which they carried. Several of them were struck
down, and deliberately batoned again and again while on the ground
by the foot police in a most inhuman manner. The Junior Dean then
went outside the railings, and, addressing Colonel Browne, said
that he would engage to withdraw the students if the Colonel would
withdraw the police. This was assented to, but the foot police
for a considerable time waited within the enclosure. So great was
the violence of the assault of the mounted men that, in following
the students who rushed into the College through the open wicket
gate, they used their swords with such vigour against the wooden
gate that it showed several marks of their sabres, large pieces
being cut off in some places. Among the students whose lives were
endangered by the onslaught of the police were Mr. Leeson, Mr. J.
W. Gregg, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Leathem, Mr. Brownrigg, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Lyndsay, and Mr. Chadwick. Some of them suffered very
severe injuries. Mr. Clarke was wounded in the back with a sabre
cut while he was stretched on the ground from the blow of a baton.
The College authorities prosecuted Colonel Browne and some of the
police criminally for an assault on the students, but they were
acquitted by a jury at the ensuing Commission. It is pleasing to
add that since that time the best relations have existed between
the students and the Metropolitan police; indeed, the feelings of
the latter body were supposed at the time to have been excited by
some strong observations which were made in the columns of a Dublin
newspaper which appeared on the morning of the occurrence.
THE DIVINITY SCHOOL OF TRINITY COLLEGE.--The institution of a
special school designed for the instruction of the future clergy
of the Church of Ireland did not take effect until the close
of the eighteenth century. The students of Trinity College,
under instruction, were at the beginning of this century either
undergraduates or Bachelors of Arts. The undergraduates were
lectured in classics and mathematics by public lecturers appointed
by the College, and their religious training was specially
entrusted to the Catechist. After they took the B.A. degree they
still continued under instruction by the several Professors of the
mathematical and physical sciences, of Greek, and of the several
faculties, while their religious instruction was under the special
care of the Regius Professor of Divinity, and of a Lecturer of
early but uncertain foundation, which latter post was afterwards
endowed with the interest of £1,000 by Archbishop King. Junior
Bachelors attended the prelections of this Lecturer, and Middle
and Senior Bachelors the prelections of the Regius Professor; and
this attendance was compulsory upon all graduates in residence.
Many ex-Scholars of Trinity College remember well that until recent
times all Scholars who were graduates were obliged to attend, at
their choice, certain courses of lectures with the Professors of
Greek or Oratory or Mathematics or Law, but all were, without
distinction, under pain of losing their salaries, obliged to attend
lectures with either the Regius Professor of Divinity or Archbishop
King’s Lecturer. In the year 1790, at a meeting of the Irish
Bishops, it was determined that they would in future not ordain
any candidate who had not the B.A. degree and a certificate of
having attended lectures in Divinity for one academic year (at that
time consisting of four terms), and they forwarded to the Board a
list of books in which the Bishops had decided that candidates for
Holy Orders should be examined prior to ordination. The Board, in
reply, informed the Bishops that they would direct the assistant to
Archbishop King’s Lecturer to prepare the students in these books.
From 1790 to 1833 Divinity students attended the lectures of the
assistants to Archbishop King’s Lecturer (the Regius Professor had
not at that time any assistants) on two days in the week, Tuesdays
and Thursdays, from eight to nine in the morning. They were put
through Burnet on the Thirty-nine Articles, and if any student
attended three-fourths[99] of the lectures in each of the four
terms of the Junior Bachelor year he received a certificate, which
was inserted in the testimonium of his degree, and on this he was
entitled to present himself for the Ordination Examination. The
Rev. Richard Brooke, in his _Recollections of the Irish Church_,
gives a very vivid account of his experience as a Divinity student
in 1827. The books he then read--they could not have been all
lectured on (and there is no record of any compulsory Divinity
examination)--were Burnet, Pearson, Mosheim, Paley’s Evidences,
Magee on the Atonement, Wheatley on the Common Prayer, Tomline on
the Articles, Butler’s Analogy, and the Bible and Greek Testament,
with Patrick Lowth and Whitby’s Commentary. It is believed, from
the testimony of clergymen who were students at that period, that
the lectures were confined very much to Burnet and Butler.
At that time, Archbishop King’s Lecturer in Divinity was an annual
office poorly endowed, and, like the Professorships of Greek, of
Mathematics, and of Civil Law, held always by a Senior Fellow. Such
was the condition of things up to 1833. The Divinity Professors
were mainly engaged in prelecting to graduate Scholars, and to such
graduates as desired to attend their lectures. In that year the
Divinity School was arranged upon its present basis. Dr. Elrington
was, in 1833, Regius Professor of Divinity; and the annual
office of Archbishop King’s Lecturer was separated from a Senior
Fellowship, was endowed with £700 a-year from the funds of the
College, and was given to Dr. O’Brien, afterwards Bishop of Ossory,
but at that time a Junior Fellow, as a permanent Professorship.
The course was extended to one of two years’ length, compulsory
examinations were instituted, assistants to the Regius Professor
were then first appointed, and he and they had the care of the
Senior class, consisting only of those who had passed the B.A.
examination. Archbishop King’s Lecturer and his assistants had the
instruction of the Junior class of Divinity students entrusted to
them. These were for the most part Senior Sophisters.
The Divinity course now comprises two years’ study of Divinity,
each consisting of three academic terms. Students generally begin
to attend lectures at the beginning of their third year in Arts.
In the Junior year they are lectured by Archbishop King’s Lecturer
on the Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion, and in the
Socinian Controversy; and by his assistants in the Greek of the
Gospels and of the Epistle to the Romans, and in Pearson on the
Creed. There are three days set apart for composition of sermons
and essays each term, when the students are brought into the Hall,
and are given either a text of Scripture, or a subject connected
with the Professor’s lectures for that term, to write upon; two
such compositions at least, in each term, are obligatory. During
the Christmas and Easter recesses the students are obliged to study
one of the Epistles in Greek, and a portion of Ecclesiastical
History, in which they are examined on the first lecture-day of
the following term. Having completed three terms’ lectures, they
pass an examination in certain text-books connected with the
studies of the Junior year, and in the English New Testament; in
specified portions of the Greek Testament, and in the Professor’s
prelections. Having passed this examination, they are permitted to
attend the lectures of the Regius Professor of Divinity and his
assistants for the next three terms. The lectures of the Regius
Professor are upon the Book of Common Prayer, the Canon of Holy
Scripture, and the Roman Catholic Controversy; and his assistants
lecture upon Bishops Burnet and Browne on the Thirty-nine Articles,
and upon the Greek of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and
the Epistle to the Hebrews. The rules with regard to study in the
intervals between the terms and composition are nearly the same as
those of the Junior year; and when the student has completed his
sixth term of study, he presents himself at the examination for the
Divinity Testimonium, after he has, in nearly every case, taken
his B.A. degree. Lectures in Ecclesiastical History, in Hebrew, in
Pastoral Theology, and in Biblical Greek are provided, but they
are not compulsory. The number of Divinity Testimoniums granted
for each of the last five years averaged 35, and for each of the
previous five years the average was 32.[100]
The subjects of the Divinity lectures for the Junior year were
arranged in reference to the controversies which were most
prevalent in the Irish Church in the year 1833, and also in
reference to the special theological aptitudes of Dr. O’Brien. He
was peculiarly fitted to treat of the evidences of natural and
revealed religion, and to reply to the objections to both which
were then current. Those who remember his prelections can bear
testimony to the wonderful ability and skill with which he dealt
with the infidel controversy of his time, and the light which he
threw upon the well-known arguments of Bishop Butler. The Socinian
controversy at that period occupied the serious attention of the
Irish clergy, and it was necessary that all the young ministers
of the Church should be prepared to deal with the arguments of the
Unitarian when they entered upon their duties as curates.
Prior to 1814 the Regius Professor of Divinity held no public
examination in the subjects of his course. In 1813 Dean Graves,
who at that time held the office, submitted to the Board a plan
for the improvement of Divinity lectures, and a new Royal Statute
was obtained regulating the duties of the Professor. He was bound
to deliver prelections during term, but they were practically
confined to the first week in Michaelmas term, the first and
second weeks in Hilary term, and the first week in Easter term.
He was also bound to hold an examination once a-year, open to
Bachelors of Arts. The subjects of this examination were fixed
by Statute. On the first morning it was the Old Testament, the
first afternoon the New; on the second morning in Ecclesiastical
History, and the second afternoon in the Articles and Liturgy of
the Church of England. In 1814 the Board instituted prizes at this
examination, which was otherwise voluntary. On the first occasion
thirty graduates entered their names for the examination, but only
five attended, and it ended in only three or four highly prepared
Divinity students presenting themselves each year for a searching
examination in an extended course. In 1859 these Divinity prizes
were enlarged into Theological Exhibitions, two of which, of £60
and £40 a-year, tenable for three years, are now awarded as the
result of this examination, greatly enlarged and extended by
the addition of selections from the writings of the Fathers and
specified portions of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Prizes
also at the end of the first Divinity year, called after the name
of Archbishop King, were founded in 1836. Both these stimulants to
theological study, aided by annual prizes at examinations held by
the Professors of Biblical Greek and of Ecclesiastical History,
have very widely extended the reading of the best class of Divinity
students. Candidates for the degree of Bachelor of Divinity are now
required to pass an examination in the whole of the extended range
of theological subjects required of candidates for the Exhibitions;
but as those who seek Divinity degrees are generally clergymen who
are engaged in the duties of their calling, they are allowed to
divide the examination into parts and to pass it in detail instead
of on one occasion. Few of the modern arrangements have been so
successful as this. By directing and encouraging a wide course
of theological reading among the younger clergy, it has produced
an excellent effect, and the popularity of the arrangement is
manifested by the large increase in the number of candidates for
the B.D. degree by examination.
It would give an incomplete account of the preparation of
candidates for Holy Orders in Trinity College, Dublin, if we were
to omit the mention of the important training which the College
Theological Society affords to the students. Once in each week
during term the members meet under the presidency of either the
Regius Professor or of Archbishop King’s Lecturer in Divinity;
essays on theological subjects, or on one of the important
religious questions of the day, are read by the students in turn; a
debate upon the essay follows, which is watched over and moderated
by the President, who, at the conclusion, makes such observations
as he thinks fit. The students are in this manner practised in
thoughtful and carefully prepared composition, and in extempore
speaking; and the great benefits derived by Divinity students from
this voluntary society are universally admitted--advantages which
have been mainly due to the unremitting care of the late Bishop
Butcher, formerly Regius Professor, and his successors in that
chair.
THE MEDICAL SCHOOL.--The marked and rapid growth of the Medical
School of the University of Dublin has been one of the most notable
events in its history during the nineteenth century. Although it
was in existence in Trinity College since 1711, it was only in
1786 that it was placed on its present footing by an Act of the
Irish Parliament, which united the College of Physicians with
Trinity College in the joint management of the instruction given
in this school. Five of the teachers are appointed by the Provost
and Senior Fellows, and four (designated King’s Professors) by the
College of Physicians, the Trustees of Sir Patrick Dun’s estates.
This Statute further required that all who shall be in attendance
on medical lectures, whether students of Trinity College or extern
students in Medicine, shall be matriculated by the Senior Lecturer.
For the first fifteen years these matriculations averaged only 4·7
each year. The numbers gradually increased, until in the years
1809-1813, inclusive, the average reached 41·4 each year; from 1814
to 1824 they rose to an average of 66·5. In the next quinquennial
period they increased to the large number of 90·8 annually. In
the years from 1831 to 1835 the average fell to 63, and in the
following two years the number barely exceeded 28 each year. The
great increase of medical students in the period between 1814 and
1835 is to be attributed mainly to the eminence of the University
Professor of Anatomy and Chirurgery--James Macartney[101]--a
man of the greatest powers both as an anatomist, a biologist,
and surgical teacher. On his ceasing to hold the Professorship,
the number of students in the Medical School fell to what it had
been before his appointment; and having continued at a low level
for thirty years, it suddenly rose to an average of nearly 80
entrances in 1864, in which year Doctor Edward H. Bennett, the
present Professor of Surgery, was appointed to the office of
University Anatomist--an office which had, after being in abeyance
for a century, been revived in 1861. From this time the numbers
have gradually risen until they amounted to more than they were
in the most flourishing period of Doctor Macartney’s teaching.
Doctor Macartney held the Chair of Anatomy for twenty-four years,
until July, 1837, when he resigned the office, very much because
he was unwilling to submit to the rules laid down by the governing
body of the College. In the year 1834 a complaint was made to the
Provost and Senior Fellows, by the other Professors of the Medical
School, that he had fixed his lectures at an hour, from 3 to 4
p.m., which interfered with those of the other Professors of that
school. In December, 1835, the Board informed him that they would
permit him to continue his lectures during that session at the
hour which he had announced, but that this privilege would not be
further continued. In November, 1836, Dr. Macartney persisted in
lecturing at 3 o’clock. He was ordered by the Board to lecture at
another hour, and this order was conveyed also to the College of
Physicians. Dr. Macartney persisted; and the Board took the advice
of counsel as to their powers, and, as a result, they ordered the
Anatomy House to be closed from 3 to 4 o’clock. In the end the
Professor yielded. But another cause of dispute soon rose. In
April, 1836, the Board received a letter from the Registrar of the
School of Physic, which stated that Doctor Macartney wished to
have his lectures advertised as being two in Anatomy and two in
Surgery each week. This was held by the Board to be insufficient,
inasmuch as the University of Edinburgh required five lectures
in each of these subjects every week, and would require from the
Dublin Professors certificates to that effect. Notwithstanding the
remonstrance of the Provost and Senior Fellows, Doctor Macartney
persisted in his advertisement. Doctor Sandes, one of the Senior
Fellows, undertook at their request to write to the Professor
in the hope that he would be able to induce him to change his
decision, but his attempt was not followed by success. A case was
laid before Mr. Pennefather, K.C., and as a result of his opinion,
on November 26, 1836, Doctor Macartney was required to deliver five
lectures in each week at one o’clock during the session. On July
13, 1837, he resigned the Professorship--four years before his
tenure of office would otherwise have expired.
In consequence of his quarrel with the authorities of Trinity
College, all Doctor Macartney’s valuable collection of preparations
became the property of the University of Cambridge. That learned
body agreed with Macartney that he should transfer his collections
to them in consideration of an annuity of £100 for a period not
exceeding ten years. In making arrangements with Doctor Harrison,
his successor, the Board took care to renew the understanding
which they had made in 1802 with Dr. Hartigan, but which they had,
through an oversight, omitted to establish on Doctor Macartney’s
election--that all such preparations should become the property of
the College.
It should be added, in justice to Dr. Harrison, who succeeded
Macartney, and who was an excellent human anatomist and a most
painstaking and attractive lecturer, that the great falling off
of medical students in his time must be attributed to many causes
beyond his control: first, the refusal of the Irish College of
Surgeons to receive certificates of his lectures, very much
through professional jealousy; secondly, the opening of large
medical schools in the central parts of England, which drew away
all the Welsh students who had before that time come to Dublin in
considerable numbers, and the opening of the Ledwich School of
Medicine in Dublin; and thirdly, to the institution of the Queen’s
Colleges in Belfast, Cork, and Galway, which retained in those
towns the students in Medicine who had previously been in the habit
of coming to Dublin for lectures.
The old Anatomy House, situated between the College Park and the
Fellows’ Garden, was a small and inconvenient building. It became
altogether unsuited to the numbers attending Doctor Macartney’s
classes. In 1815 space was made for them by the removal of the wax
models from the room in which they had been placed to that over it,
and a small building was erected in the Fellows’ Garden adjacent
to the old house. This was but a temporary expedient, for we find
that in 1820 the floor of the lecture-room was reported to be in
a dangerous condition, and the Board directed that, in future,
lectures in Anatomy and Chemistry should be delivered in the
public lecture-room in No. 22 of the Library Square. A committee
was appointed to arrange for a new site for the Medical School.
That which was at first fixed upon was at the east side of the
Fellows’ Garden, between the old Anatomy House and Nassau Street;
but on further consideration it was changed to the ground, hitherto
the Bowling Green, at the remote extremity of the College Park.
On April 1, 1823, estimates were laid before the Board for the
building of an anatomical and chemical theatre on the above site.
The estimates ranged between £3,980 and £5,350, and a contract was
made for the work. Macartney seems to have taken a great interest
in the selecting of the site. Thus we find him writing to the
Registrar, Dr. Phipps, from Newry, in May, 1822:--
“As our interest, and that of our successors, and the future
prosperity of the Medical School, will be affected by the
situation and mode of erecting of the building intended for the
Anatomical and Chemical instruction, we beg leave to lay our
opinions before the Board on this subject. (1.) With respect to
situation, we consider any part of that side of the Park next
Nassau Street as being eligible, but if we were to select a
particular place on this line it would be opposite to Kildare
Street, showing the front towards the street. The Bowling Green
we think a disadvantageous situation, as being damp, and the
entrance being through a private yard, which has been proposed
by the architect, we think would be highly injurious to the
respectability of the School. The distance of the Bowling Green
would be very inconvenient to students in Arts, of whom our
classes are chiefly composed. The above objection equally applies
to the side of the Park next Brunswick Street. (2.) We are of
opinion that, to make the buildings distinct, however contiguous
in situation to each other, would much facilitate and simplify
the plans, and expedite their erection, and would add greatly
to the respectability of both establishments; as the shape
and disposition of the apartments in the two houses might be
different, we are satisfied that less expense would be incurred
by adopting a separate plan for each house.”
And while the building was being erected he wrote about the light,
sending the following characteristic letter to the Board (29th
March, 1823):--
“The light we want in the lecture-room may still be had without
displacing a single timber of the roof as it at present stands,
but after the copper is put on, any change will be attended with
delay and expense, and I am satisfied that the Board (if not now)
will hereafter be disposed to yield to the just complaints of
the pupils with respect to the want of light. I think it will be
generally acknowledged that, after the experience of teaching in
different lecture-rooms for twenty-five years, my opinion ought
to have more weight than that of any architect. I wish to add
that I have no direct interest in the matter; whether there be
good or bad light would not increase or diminish my class, as is
fully proved by the number of pupils who attend in my present
room, where one half of the objects used at lecture cannot be
seen for the want of light, and where, from want of space, some
are obliged to stand in the lobby; but I should think myself
deficient in public duty if I did not persist in stating to the
Board the inconvenience and injury that will be sustained by the
pupils, of what they have now for several years anticipated the
removal, by the erection of a suitable building for carrying on
the business of the School.”
These Medical School buildings were in use from 1825 for more
than fifty years. When of late years the number of medical
students increased so largely, and it was found that this latter
building was altogether unsuited for the modern requirements of
the school, the present chemical laboratory and dissecting-room
were erected, and a histological laboratory and physiological
lecture-room were added. In 1884 a bone-room, a preparation room,
and private laboratories were built. In the same year the new
chemical theatre was opened, and in the following year the new
anatomical theatre was completed, which is fitted for a class of
230 students. Since that time the entire of the new great Medical
Schools have been finished, which, in addition to Professors’ rooms
and lecture-rooms, contain a fine chamber specially fitted up for
the great pathological collection originally purchased from the
late Doctor Robert Smith, whose lectures as Professor of Surgery
had a large share in the great recent success of the school. This
collection has been largely added to by the indefatigable labours
of his successor, Doctor Edward H. Bennett. The anatomy and
chemistry lecture-rooms of 1824 were completely removed, in order
to make a space for part of the present range of buildings, which
have been completed at a cost of over £20,000.
In a lecture delivered in 1837, the Professor of the Practice of
Physic (Doctor Lendrick) attributed to Provost Bartholomew Lloyd
the improvements which were even at that time beginning to be
effected in the medical education of the members of the College.
“The candidate for a medical degree,” he said, “no longer finishes
his medical education in a single year, nor is he compelled to
complete a septennial period of (perhaps) idleness before being
permitted to practise his profession.” In the years 1832-42,
inclusive, the average number of degrees of Bachelor of Medicine
annually conferred by the University was 18. In the next decade
this number fell to 11·7. After the great improvements in the
medical education and the appointment of more attractive lecturers,
this number rapidly increased. In the decade 1872-1881 the average
was 39, in the following ten years the annual average was 43·6,
being nearly four times that of forty years before the present time.
During the first half of the present century the University
conferred degrees in Medicine only. The Irish College of Surgeons,
towards the end of that period, refused to recognise the lectures
delivered in the Medical School of Trinity College as a part of the
professional education required for a surgical diploma, although
two of the Trinity College Professors had previously occupied a
similar position in the College of Surgeons’ School. The University
of Dublin was consequently, in 1851, obliged to institute for their
medical graduates a diploma or license in Surgery. This they did,
following the best legal advice, under the clause in their charter
which gave them authority to grant degrees “_in omnibus artibus et
facultatibus_.” This was followed by the institution, in 1858, of
the degree of Master of Surgery. This degree was, by the Act 21
and 22 Victoria, chap. 90, recognised as a qualification for the
holder to be placed in the Medical Register--a privilege which was
afterwards, by the Act 23 Victoria, chap. 7, extended to diplomas
or licenses in Surgery. In 1872 the degree of Bachelor of Surgery
was instituted, and placed on the basis of Bachelor of Medicine.
To be admitted to either of these degrees the candidate must have
previously graduated in Arts, and must have spent four years in
the study of Medicine and Surgery. Degrees are now given also in
Obstetric Art. The University of Dublin was the first in modern
times to institute degrees in Surgery, and its example has been
since followed by Cambridge and other English, Irish, and Scotch
Universities.
The change of opinion in the Universities with respect to the
status of the profession of Surgery is well illustrated by a
correspondence, which has been preserved in the College Register,
between the University of Cambridge and the authorities of Trinity
College, Dublin. On June 30, 1804, a letter was received from
the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, in which it was stated that
that University had declined to consider any student who had,
subsequently to his admission, practised any trade or profession
whatsoever as qualified for a degree, and consequently had refused
this to Frederick Thackeray, who, since the time of his admission
as an undergraduate, had been constantly engaged in the practice
of surgery. The Provost and Senior Fellows, in reply, informed
the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge that, after consideration of his
letter, they had agreed to adopt the same regulation.
In the early part of this century, before Sir Patrick Dun’s
Hospital was erected, great difficulty was experienced in the
clinical instruction of the medical students. In 1800 the Governors
of Stevens’ Hospital permitted Dr. Crampton to give reports of
medical cases under his care in the Hospital for the winter six
months to matriculated medical students, and to none others.
Attendance on these lectures was required for medical degrees.
In 1804 clinical lectures by Dr. Whitley Stokes at the Meath
Hospital were considered to be adequate for this purpose. In
1806, attendance for six months with Doctor Crampton at Stevens’
Hospital was sanctioned by the College of Physicians as adequate
for a medical degree. On the completion in 1808 of the west wing
of Dun’s Hospital, which had been commenced in 1803, the clinical
instruction connected with the School of Physic was given in the
wards and lecture-rooms of the Hospital; and in 1835 candidates
for medical degrees were required to present a certificate of one
year’s attendance at this institution. Sir Patrick Dun’s Hospital
was originally intended for medical cases only, but in 1864 the
College of Physicians, which had hitherto occupied the central
position of the building as a library and Convocation Hall,
transferred this part of the building to the Governors of the
Hospital, and it was enlarged and changed into a medico-chirurgical
institution for the complete instruction of the students both in
Medicine and Surgery. Attendance at this hospital is no longer
compulsory on the candidates for degrees; nine other Dublin
hospitals are joined with it, and the student may, if he wishes,
receive his clinical teaching in any of these.
In the early part of the century, Trinity College for a short
time granted diplomas in Medicine to matriculated students who
were not students in Arts, but who attended the same lectures and
passed the same examinations as were required of Bachelors of
Medicine. This system prevailed up to 1823, when the Board received
a letter from the College of Physicians in London, in which it
was stated that that College did not consider such a diploma as
sufficient to warrant them to grant an examination for a license
to practise physic in England. The issue of these diplomas was
then discontinued. For a short period the degree of Bachelor of
Medicine was granted to students who had completed two years’
study in Arts, but this was found to be so unsatisfactory, that the
University decided that no one should be admitted to a degree in
Medicine or in Surgery who had not previously graduated as Bachelor
of Arts.
As to the method of conducting examinations for degrees in
Medicine, we gather some curious information from a letter which
the College of Physicians sent to the Provost and Senior Fellows
in October, 1814, in which they informed the Board that they had
ordered the King’s Professor not to be present at any examination
for medical degrees in the University in which any question may be
put, or answer received, in the English language. The Registrar
was directed to write to the Regius Professor of Physic (Dr. Hill)
to inquire whether these examinations were conducted in Latin. In
reply, Dr. Hill assured the Board that he would not, under any
circumstances, examine in English. It may be conjectured that the
newly-elected Professor of Anatomy (Mr. Macartney), who was not a
University man, broke through the old rule as to the language in
which he examined.
The great growth of medical and surgical studies in the University
may be gathered from the number of the degrees of Bachelor of
Medicine which have been conferred at different periods of the
present century. In nearly all cases, students of the University
who now graduate in Medicine take also degrees in Surgery and
the Obstetric Art. The number of Medical Matriculations for
the last three years has been as follows:--1889--Students in
Arts, 55, Externs, 28; 1890--Students in Arts, 61, Externs,
26; 1891--Students in Arts, 100, Externs, 28. During the five
years previous to 1889 these numbers averaged--Students in
Arts, 62; Externs, 34; total of each year, 96. The religious
professions of the medical students who were matriculated in
1891 were as follows:--Church of Ireland, 85; Church of England,
10; Presbyterian, 12; Roman Catholics, 12; Methodists, 6; other
denominations, 3;--total, 128.
ARTS COURSE. 1792-1892.--At the beginning of this period, and for
some years after, there were four academic Terms each year, during
which the students, both undergraduates and graduates, attended
lectures. In each Term two days were set apart, according to
the directions of the Statutes, for the general examinations of
all the undergraduate classes. It was found that the increasing
number of students could not be properly examined in this limited
time. Application was made to the Crown for a Royal letter giving
power to the Provost and Senior Fellows to increase the number of
days for this purpose in each Term, and a Statute to that effect
was enacted in 1792. In the following year a new and greatly
improved list of the subjects for each examination in all the
parts of the Undergraduate Course was adopted.[102] At the same
time, a scheme was devised for stimulating the study of the Greek
and Latin Classics, and for extending the cultivation of Latin
Composition, both in prose and verse, by special prizes at these
examinations.[103] The subjects for the examination for admission
to the College were also carefully re-modelled and set out for the
use of schools; and in 1794 a well-devised system of examinations
and of prizes for proficiency in Hebrew was instituted. Yet at
this period there were no special lectures for advanced students,
either in Mathematics or in Classics. The dull and the clever
student were taught together, both at the public lectures and by
the College Tutor; and at the Term Examinations all the students
in each division were taken together, the Examiner having at the
same time, in a very limited number of hours, to satisfy himself of
the progress which each undergraduate had made in his studies, to
distinguish between the idle and the diligent, between the badly
and the well-prepared, and at the same time to pick out and reward
the best answerer in each division of about forty students.
The first earnest attempt to provide Classical instruction of
a higher order for the better class of students was devised by
Provost Kearney in 1800. Special Classical Lectures were arranged
to be given by the ablest scholars among the Fellows twice a-week,
at 7 a.m. The first special Lecturers appointed for this purpose
were--Dr. Miller in Greek, and Mr. Walker in Latin. These lectures
appear to have been instituted for the purpose of advancing
the classical studies of such graduates as intended to devote
themselves to the instruction of boys in schools; for it was
arranged, at the same time, that every graduate, who should appear
to the Provost and Senior Fellows to merit such encouragement, was
to be entitled to a certificate under the College Seal testifying
that he was “qualified to instruct youth in the grammatical
principles, the classical idioms, and the prosody of the Greek
and Latin languages.” The salary of each of these Lecturers was
fixed at £40 annually. In 1804, Dr. Miller was succeeded by Mr.
Kyle as Lecturer in Greek, and Mr. Walker by Mr. Nash as Lecturer
in Latin. In 1801 the Professor of Oratory was authorised to give
prizes for excellent answering at the lectures delivered by him and
his assistants; and, in order to stimulate the study of the Hebrew
language at school, prizes for good answering in that subject, at
the monthly entrance examinations, were instituted; and in order
to encourage further the study of composition, both in Greek,
Latin, and English Prose and Verse, in 1805 the Vice-Chancellor
assigned that portion of the fees for Degrees which was then
payable to him, to form a fund for prizes, to be given at the time
of the Commencements, for the best compositions in each branch.
In 1808 Catechetical Lectures and Examinations in Holy Scripture
for the two Freshmen classes on the basis of the ordinary Term
Examinations were first instituted, and, at the same time, regular
weekly instruction by the Clerical Fellows in a fixed course
of Holy Scripture and religious knowledge was arranged. On the
same occasion Algebra was for the first time made a part of the
Undergraduate Course, the only Mathematics which all the students
had been taught before that time being four books of the Elements
of Euclid.
In order to stimulate the more advanced students to an increased
pursuit of Mathematical Physics, Dr. Bartholomew Lloyd was
appointed to deliver lectures on Mechanics at a salary of £100
annually, on the condition that he should resign his claims to any
other Professorship, Lectureship, or Assistant’s place, except that
of Catechetical Lecturer. In 1815 a new scheme of Mathematical
Lectures was promulgated. The following distribution of the work
to be done by the Professor and his assistants was arranged by the
Provost and Senior Fellows:--
The Junior Assistant to lecture on Arithmetic and Algebra to
Biquadratic Equations, including Newton’s Method of approximation
to roots of Equations, also on the application of Algebra to
Geometry as given by Newton. The Senior Assistant to lecture
on Logarithms, Analytical Trigonometry, with its application
to Terrestrial Measurement, application of Algebra to Geometry
managed by the equations of figures. The Professor to lecture
on the more advanced parts of Mathematics, including the Method
of Indeterminate Coefficients, with its application to the
management of Series, and other matters not contained in the
Course of the Assistant, also Differential and Integral Calculus
and the Method of Variations.
The programme of the subjects of these lectures shows that there
was a large advance in the mathematical education of the students
made at this time. Analytical Geometry and Trigonometry were taught
to the Honour men among the undergraduates, and the Differential
and Integral Calculus and the higher branches of Mathematics were
expounded by the Professor of Mathematics to the candidates for
Fellowship. Hitherto the mathematical studies of the members of
the College were mainly geometrical. The great start in analytical
science, which has developed itself so largely in the University,
seems to date from this time, and is due very much to the influence
of Dr. Bartholomew Lloyd, who had in 1813 been appointed to the
Chair of Mathematics. It was not until 1830 that a similar progress
was made in the study of Mixed Mathematics. We find that in
November of that year a committee, consisting of the Professors of
Mathematics and Natural Philosophy, with Dr. Wall, was appointed
to recommend to the Board a proper course of Mixed Mathematics,
and they were instrumental in introducing the Mechanics of Poisson
into the subjects for examination for the higher mathematical
honours. A small but important improvement in the existing method
of conducting the Term Examinations of ordinary students was made
at the same time. Hitherto some of the classes were submitted to
be tested by the same Junior Fellow in Science and in Classics.
In 1831 it was decided that these branches of studies should be
judged by separate examiners in every case. At this time there was
no special examination for the degree of Bachelor of Arts. Senior
Sophister students who answered in an unsatisfactory manner at the
Michaelmas Term Examination were “sent to the Regent House” to be
examined.
In 1807 it was decreed that every student who is “cautioned
to the Regent House” shall be examined in every part of the
Undergraduate Course for which he has got a _mediocriter_ at
his last examination. It was not until October, 1838, that this
examination in the Regent House was formally discontinued, although
it had fallen into disuse. It was then arranged that one _vix
mediocriter_ for the B.A. degree should subject the candidate to
another examination.
This is the suitable occasion upon which to mention in detail the
great services which the mild energy and enlightened views of Dr.
Bartholomew Lloyd performed in the reformation of the studies and
the literary work of Trinity College. To no one man during the
present century does the University owe so much. A native of the
County of Wexford, he was elected a Fellow in 1796, and after a
service of twenty years as College Tutor, which he discharged with
zeal and ability, he was co-opted to a Senior Fellowship in 1816,
and he was appointed to the Provostship in 1831. Dr. Lloyd held the
Professorship of Mathematics from 1813 to 1822, when he exchanged
this chair for that of Natural Philosophy. He occupied the latter
office until he was made Provost, and he was thus for eighteen
years engaged in the direction of the highest studies of the most
advanced classes in the branches of Pure and Mixed Mathematics.
He quickly saw the need of introducing a more complete knowledge
of the more advanced analytic methods which prevailed on the
Continent, and he compiled a course of lectures, as we have seen,
in order to introduce them to his class; and partly by his lectures
and partly by his writings[104] he completely revolutionised the
mathematical and physical studies of the University, and was
the means of directing the researches of the higher class of
thinkers to the methods which have rendered the Dublin school of
mathematicians so celebrated in Europe.
Shortly after his appointment to the Chair of Natural Philosophy,
he published his well-known treatise on Mechanical Philosophy,
which supplied a want widely felt by students of that science in
this and the sister country, and which was the means of introducing
to them the researches of the French labourers in the field of
Applied Mathematics.
During the six years of his Provostship he was the means of
effecting very large and beneficial changes in the College. Up to
1831 all the important Professorships were held by Senior Fellows,
and in most cases (except in those on the foundation of Erasmus
Smith) they were held, like other College offices, as the result of
an annual election. Dr. Lloyd saw the necessity of setting apart
some of the Junior Fellows for the fixed and exclusive work of
Professorial study and teaching. For this purpose he influenced
the College Board to set apart three of the Junior Fellows, whose
tastes were specially directed to these particular studies, to
the Professorships of Mathematics, of Natural Philosophy, and the
office of Archbishop King’s Lectureship in Divinity. Mr. M‘Cullagh
was elected to the first of these chairs, Mr. Humphrey Lloyd to
the second, and Dr. O’Brien to the third. They were freed from all
the distracting cares of College Tutors, and the salaries were
fixed at something rather below the average value of a Junior
Fellowship. The tenure of the Professorship was terminated by the
co-option of the holder to a place among the Senior Fellows. The
Fellowship Examination was improved by a Royal Statute which was
then obtained, and which enabled the Professors of Mathematics and
Natural Philosophy to be called up to undertake the examination in
the courses belonging to their respective chairs.
Provost Bartholomew Lloyd saw also the necessity of fostering the
study of Mental and Moral Philosophy among the members of the
College. Prior to 1833 the study of these sciences was joined with
that of Mathematics and Physics under the common designation of
_Science_. But for the attainment of prizes and other University
distinctions, the Mathematical part of the examination placed that
of the Logical and Ethical portions of the curriculum completely
in the background. In 1833 a new system of awarding Honours and
Medals at the Degree Examination was instituted, and in addition
to the distinctions in Mathematics and Classics, which had been
in existence since the year 1815, a third course was fixed for a
separate examination in Ethics and Logics, and gold and silver
medals were awarded for distinguished answering in these subjects,
in addition to the similar rewards for merit under the designation
of Senior and Junior Moderatorships in Mathematics and in Classics.
This arrangement was carried out in 1834, and the first name in
the list of Ethical Moderators of that year was that of William
Archer Butler--a brilliant and afterwards most distinguished man,
both as a writer and a preacher, who was taken away by death from
the service of the Church and of the University at the early age of
thirty-four.
Provost Lloyd had long seen the necessity of a separate
Professorship of the Moral Sciences, and in 1837 he induced the
Governing Body of the University to found it. On the day on which
it was instituted Archer Butler was appointed to the Professorship,
which he held for ten years, much to the benefit of the class
of thinkers to whom these studies were interesting. By these
arrangements Dr. Lloyd may be well said to be the founder of the
distinguished school of Metaphysics which has taken such deep
root in the College, and has borne much fruit. In 1850, mainly
through the exertions of his son, Dr. Humphrey Lloyd, a fourth
Moderatorship in Experimental Physics was founded.[105] But it
was not only with the advancement of higher class education that
Provost Lloyd was engaged: he effected enormous improvements in
the lectures and examinations of the undergraduates at large. To
this he was stimulated by a remarkably thoughtful and searching
pamphlet, written in 1828 by Dr. Richard MacDonnell, who was then a
Junior Fellow, and had an experience of twenty years of the great
defects in the method of conducting the Term Examinations. Most of
the suggestions in this pamphlet were adopted in course of time.
Before the year 1833 the work of the College was distributed over
four separate Terms, at the beginning of each of which the students
were examined in the subjects in which they had been instructed
during the previous Term. These Terms were of unequal and variable
length. The Easter Term was far too short for the appointed course
of study; and the Trinity Term, depending on the movable feasts,
was often merely nominal. In order to obviate these inconveniences,
the Provost and Senior Fellows applied for and obtained a Royal
Statute reducing the number of Academic Terms from four to three,
and fixing them so that they would be generally of equal length.
The hours of examination for each class of students were altered so
as to meet the change of social habits; and while it was formerly
the custom to have the first part of the examination of each day
to continue from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., followed by a breakfast at the
chambers of the College Tutors, in 1833 the change was made to the
present hours of examination--from 9.30 to 12 in the morning of
the first day, and from 10 to 12 in the morning of the second day
of each Term Examination. The subjects of the Undergraduate Course
were in the same year submitted to a very wide-reaching review.
In the year 1793, great improvements had been made in the Classical
Course set out for the studies of the undergraduates. These were,
it is said, largely due to the influence of Dr. Thomas Elrington.
On that occasion the works of the great Greek historians, Herodotus
and Thucydides, were brought for the first time under the attention
of the classical students in Trinity College; but, during the
forty years which followed, little change had been made in the
classical authors which were read by the undergraduates. In 1833,
for the first time, a distinct and shorter course was arranged
for students who were not candidates for Honours, while a larger
portion, generally of the same authors, was set out for candidates
for Honours, and a wider course of classical studies was appointed
for those who competed for Classical Moderatorships at the Degree
Examination. Similar arrangements were adopted for the students in
the Mathematical and Physical portion of their curriculum.
Before this time the students of the same division, of from thirty
to forty men, were examined together, and they had no opportunity
of competing with other men of their year in the Sciences; and in
classical studies at the Scholarship Examination only, at which
they rarely competed until the third year. It was now arranged that
those who answered well at each Term Examination in Science or in
Classics should be returned by the Examiner to compete at a more
searching examination in an extended course, at which all the best
men in the class should be examined together, on days separate from
those of the Term Examinations, by three Examiners in Science and
three in Classics set apart for that purpose; and so by this means
each student was able to measure himself each Term, not only with
those who happened to be in his own division, but with all the men
of his year; and in this way the undergraduates were incited to
continued study by healthy competition. Premiums in books, which
were formerly awarded at each examination to the best answerer in
each division, but which could be obtained only once in the year,
were confined to that of the Michaelmas Term, at which there were
two orders of prizes, first and second--the number of the first
rank prizes being restricted to one fortieth of the class, and that
of the second to one twentieth.
There was another and a very important improvement in the teaching
of the undergraduates which Provost Lloyd was mainly instrumental
in effecting. Hitherto the lectures of each Tutor were given to
his own pupils. He was supposed to instruct all the men of each
of the three Junior Classes at the least for an hour every day.
Each Tutor received the fees of his own pupils, and those who had
a large number in what was technically called his “chamber” had a
considerable income, but others who were not so popular had but a
scanty support.
In 1835 the Tutors, under the persuasion of the Provost, agreed to
adopt a new system. The fees paid by the pupils were put into a
common fund, and the Tutors were divided into three grades, in the
order of seniority, and their dividends were fixed, not in relation
to the number of their pupils, but of the standing of the Tutor
among the Fellows; each of them was thus assured of a certain and
increasing income--the only advantage accruing to the Tutor from
the number of his pupils arose from the arrangement that, when he
ceased from any cause to be a Tutor, the payments of the Tutorial
fees of his existing pupils, as long as they remained in College,
instead of being paid into the common fund, were paid to the Tutor
himself or to his representatives.
A corresponding division of Tutorial labour, as far as lectures
were concerned, was effected at the same time. Each Tutor was
required to lecture only two hours every day, except on Saturday;
and the efficacy of the lectures was greatly increased, and the
regularity of the attendance of the lecturer in the instruction
of his class guarded by stringent rules. Every student in the two
Freshman Classes was now lectured for two hours instead of one;
under the old arrangement the lecture in Classics was often a mere
form, not always observed; by the new system an hour’s lecture
in Latin was secured to each undergraduate in these classes. The
Junior Sophisters were lectured by the Tutors in Mathematical
Physics and Astronomy only. In addition to the Tutorial Lectures,
the undergraduates attended, as they did before, the Public Science
Lectures, the hours of the lecture being changed from 6.15 to 7.30
a.m., and the lectures of the assistants to the Greek Professor on
Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, which were delivered at 9 a.m.
Again, there was a great improvement effected with respect to the
attendance of the undergraduates at Tutorial Lectures. At this
time these lectures were not obligatory; Terms were not kept by
attendance at them, nor did the College keep any record of them. A
student did not advance in any way his College standing by seeking
the instruction given by his College Tutor. No cognizance was taken
of irregularity, either on the part of the lecturer or of the
lectured. A Tutor was often absent from his class, and the class
was oftener absent from the Tutor. An important rule was adopted
to counteract this: a weekly return was required to be made to the
Tutorial Committee of the attendance upon his lectures, which was
to be transmitted to the Provost, and the Tutor had an opportunity
of judging of the regularity of the studies of his pupils, who
were, according to this inter-tutorial system, in attendance on the
lectures of other Tutors. In a very few years the lectures were
much better arranged, some of the Tutors being set apart to lecture
the candidates for Honours in each class, while others devoted
themselves to the greater drudgery of instructing the mere pass-men.
In order to secure the diligent discharge of the duties assigned to
each Tutor, the Tutorial Committee was bound to employ deputies to
lecture in his place in case of his failure from any cause, and to
remunerate the deputies out of the income of the defaulting Tutor.
That this division of labour added very much to the ease of the
conscientious Tutors is quite evident. Doctor Romney Robinson, who
was a Fellow and Tutor under the old system, wrote as follows in
the preface to his treatise on Mechanics, published in 1820:--“The
Fellows of Trinity College can scarcely be expected to devote
themselves to any work of research, or even of compilation;
constantly employed in the duties of tuition, which harass the
mind more than the most abstract studies, they can have but little
inclination at the close of the day to commence a new career of
labour.... In the present case the author happened to be less
occupied than most of his brethren, yet he was engaged from seven
to eight hours daily in academical duties, for the year during
which he composed this work.”
Had Bartholomew Lloyd lived, he would no doubt have originated many
other improvements in the Arts Course, and in the other studies
of the College which have been effected since his time. He was,
however, suddenly removed by death from his exertions in reforming
the College, on the 24th November, 1837, at the age of 65, having
held the Provostship for only six years. He was succeeded by Dr.
Franc Sadleir, and during the fourteen years of his mild sway the
improvements originated by his predecessor were gradually carried
into effect. Dr. Richard MacDonnell succeeded him in the office
of Provost. He had been long engaged in the work of the College
as an able and painstaking Tutor, and a vigorous administrator of
the College Estates. Dr. MacDonnell had long seen the necessity
of large reforms in the education of the students, and had ably
pointed out the abuses which required to be remedied, in the
pamphlet which has been already mentioned. Most of these defects
he lived to see corrected, and the most important of which were
removed when he was himself Provost.
One of the events which, beyond question, stimulated intellectual
exertions among the undergraduates in the University of Dublin,
was the opening of the appointments in the Civil Service of India,
and of the Army and Navy Medical Service, to public competition
in 1855. A number of the ablest students had a new career opened
to them, and they were afforded an opportunity of measuring their
attainments with students of similar calibre from Oxford and
Cambridge. The course of study was at once widened. Classical
studies received an impetus which roused the teachers from their
old routine. The English Language and Literature, and Modern
History, as well as foreign languages, became important parts of
Collegiate education. The heads of the College at once saw the
necessity of largely remodelling the instruction given to the
undergraduates. The Greek Professorship was very soon separated
from the offices which were restricted to Senior Fellows; a
Professor was elected from among the Tutors under the same
arrangements which had been carried out in the cases of Natural
Philosophy and Mathematics. He was enabled to give his entire
time to the duties of his chair. Similar arrangements were made
as to the Professorships of Geology and of Experimental Physics.
A Professor of Arabic and Hindostanee was established, and soon
after one of Sanskrit as well. The Professorship of Oratory was
virtually changed into one of English Language and Literature.
The immediate effect of these changes was at once visible in the
great and remarkable success of the Dublin candidates at the open
competitions for the Indian Civil Service and the Army Medical
Services. In the first seven years, fifty-three succeeded from
the Dublin University for the former and twenty-nine for the
latter appointments. The new regulations with regard to the study
of English Literature which were made in 1855 have produced very
widely felt effects in the intellectual life of the University.
It was not for the first time that a want of the means of being
acquainted with this important branch of knowledge was felt by
the students; and in order to remedy it, in October, 1814, during
the Provostship of Dr. Thomas Elrington, the Board directed that
lectures in the English Language and Literature should be regularly
delivered by the assistant to the Professor of Oratory, and
elaborate rules were made as to the means of carrying this course
into effect, but it seems to have ended in failure; at any rate,
during the next forty years there was no public instruction given
to the students in this important subject. The plan adopted in 1855
of making History and English Literature a distinct branch, in
which honours and medals at the Degree Examination can be obtained,
aided by the special prizes which are given for proficiency in
these subjects during the Undergraduate Course, has created a
widely felt interest among the students, and has eventuated in
the spread of a refined taste for these subjects among the members
of the College. The subjects in which the student can distinguish
himself at the B.A. Degree Examination have now been increased
to seven--1, Mathematics, pure and mixed; 2, Classics; 3, Mental
and Moral Science; 4, Experimental Physics; 5, Natural Sciences;
6, History, Law, and Political Economy; 7, Foreign Languages and
Literature. Frequent and well-considered changes in the courses for
the ordinary students, and in the subjects read by the candidates
for Honours, have been made since that period, and they have been
on the whole successful.
One of the most marked developments in the intellectual life of
the College during the present century has been the growth of the
great Classical School for which it is now so well known. This may
be mainly attributed to the separation of Classics from the other
branches which form the subject of competition for Fellowships.
A keen competition among Classical men for those highly-coveted
prizes has been the consequence. The tone of Classical Scholarship
has been raised among the best of the candidates for University
Honours, and some of the ablest men devote themselves to stimulate
the knowledge of the Greek and Latin Languages and Literature
among the students. There has, moreover, a higher Critical School
grown up in the University, limited in numbers, being composed of
Classical Graduates who are engaged in reading for Fellowship, or
who have competed for the Berkeley Medals in Greek, or for the
Vice-Chancellor’s Medals in Latin. This school, exclusive of the
Fellows and Professors, never numbers more than ten or twelve in
the College at one time, but from the ability and classical culture
of its members it has more influence in giving a tone to the
studies which are pursued in the University than its numbers would
at first sight render probable. The causes of the growth of this
school are--1st, the Critical Examination for the highest Classical
distinctions; 2nd, the fact that there is an examination for
Fellowship every year; 3rd, the annual publication of _Hermathena_;
4th, the publication of critical editions of the Classics by the
Fellows of the College.
We can trace the growth of the Mathematical studies to the
wonderful genius of MacCullagh and Hamilton, and to the labours of
Townsend, of Jellett, of Roberts, and of others who have passed
away. Fortunately for the College, all the creators of the revived
School of Classics are still spared to the College, and their names
are therefore not here mentioned.
Another vast improvement effected was in the method of conducting
all examinations in the College. Prior to 1835 they were (with the
solitary exceptions of those for gold medals at the B.A. Degree
Examinations) altogether oral. The examination for Fellowships
was a public _vivâ voce_ trial of the candidates, and in the
Latin language, without any use whatever of writing. Greek authors
were translated into Latin, and Latin authors were interpreted in
the same language. This continued to be the practice down to the
year 1853. Now, all this is changed. The Fellowship Examination,
which is spread over a much longer period, is mostly conducted in
writing, although there is in every course a public examination of
the candidates _vivâ voce_ and in English. The examinations for
Honours (except in Classical subjects) are now altogether written,
and at the ordinary Term Examinations students are tested orally
and by written questions by separate Examiners. At the general Term
Examination at the end of the second year, and at the B.A. Degree
Examination at the end of the fourth year, the candidates are
arranged according to their answering in three classes, and those
whose marks do not entitle them to be classed, but who satisfy
the Senior Lecturer, are passed without any mark of distinction.
This method of examination for the B.A. degree was adopted in
July, 1842, at the suggestion of the then Senior Lecturer, Dr.
Singer, afterwards Bishop of Meath. It was found to work in such
a satisfactory manner that, in 1845, it was adopted at the other
public University Examination, at the end of the second or Senior
Freshman year.
ENGINEERING SCHOOL.--The University of Dublin was the first to
establish a course of education and degrees in the art of Civil
Engineering. Shortly after the construction of railways in Ireland
was undertaken, there was a necessity found for properly educated
men to carry on the required work; and the plan of an Engineering
School originated with Doctor Humphrey Lloyd, Professor of Natural
Philosophy; Doctor MacCullagh, Professor of Mathematics; and Doctor
Luby, Assistant Professor of Natural Philosophy. These three
gentlemen laid a memorial before the Provost and Senior Fellows on
April 3rd, 1841, recommending the foundation of a Professorship
of Civil Engineering, and giving a plan for the studies of the
proposed school for teaching that branch of education. This was
finally approved by the Board early in the following June. The
length of the course as first proposed was two years, and on July
9th, 1842, Mr. M‘Neill (afterwards Sir John M‘Neill) was elected
to the Professorship. It was arranged that the business of the
School of Engineering should be conducted by five lecturers--viz.,
the assistant to the Professor of Mathematics, the Professor of
Natural Philosophy and his assistant, together with a Professor of
Chemistry and of Geology applied to the art of Construction, and a
Professor of the practice of Engineering.
Mr. M‘Neill was so completely occupied with his large works in
the construction of railways that he could give only a general
superintendence to the school, and on the 5th of November, 1842,
Mr. Henry Rennie, formerly a lieutenant in the Royal Engineers,
was appointed Assistant Professor and Lecturer. After holding the
office for two years he resigned, and Mr. Thomas Oldham, B.A.,
was appointed in his room. Doctor Apjohn was elected to the joint
Professorships of Chemistry and Geology; but in 1843 it was found
necessary to appoint a distinct Professor of Geology, and on
December 30th, 1843, Mr. John Phillips, the eminent geologist,
was elected to this chair at a salary of £200, to be increased
to £400 on the death of Doctor Whitley Stokes, then an old man,
which took place in 1845. In the latter year Mr. Phillips resigned
the Professorship, and he was succeeded by Mr. Thomas Oldham,
afterwards Director of the Geological Survey of India. In 1846 Mr.
Samuel Downing was appointed to the Professorship of Engineering,
which he continued to hold until his death in 1882.
It was soon found that a two years’ course in Engineering was
insufficient, and in 1845 it was extended to one of three years.
The studies of the first year are in the main theoretical; in the
second and third years they are practical--viz., drawing and office
work, levelling, surveying and general engineering, and chemistry
as taught in the laboratory.
At first, diplomas in Engineering were granted to students who had
passed successfully through this school. In 1860 it was resolved
by the University Senate that in lieu of these the license of the
University should be conferred publicly at the Commencements;
and in 1872 it was further resolved that the degree of Bachelor
in Civil Engineering should be created, and that it should be
conferred on Bachelors of Arts who were entitled to the license by
having completed the full course in Engineering. From the year 1860
to 1891 inclusive, 352 students obtained degrees and licenses in
Engineering. The degree of Master of Engineering is conferred on
those who, after taking the degree of Bachelor of Engineering, have
practised for three years in the work of their profession.
At each final examination in Engineering, special certificates
are awarded to students who answer in a distinguished manner in
the following subjects:--I. Practical Engineering; II. Mechanical
and Experimental Physics; III. Mining, Chemistry, Geology, and
Mineralogy.
SCHOOL OF LAW.--The lectures of the Professor of Feudal and English
Law remain very much as they were in 1792. The Professorship of
Civil Law was then and for many years afterwards held by a Senior
Fellow, often by a clergyman; the duties were nearly nominal,
and the salary small. In the year 1850, however, the Board, being
anxious to found an effective Law School in Dublin, decided that
in future the Professorship of Civil Law should be held only by a
Doctor of Laws, and a Barrister of at least six years standing; and
as such he was required to regulate the courses and lectures in the
Civil Law class, and bound to deliver at least twelve lectures in
each Term.
The Law School of the University of Dublin is under the control of
the Provost and Senior Fellows of Trinity College, who, however,
act in concurrence with the Benchers of the King’s Inns.
The Regius Professor of Laws delivers lectures on Roman Law,
Jurisprudence, and International Law. The Regius Professor of
Feudal and English Law delivers lectures on the subject of Real
Property; a third professor, whose chair was founded in 1888 by
Mr. Richard T. Reid for the study of “Penal Legislation, including
principles of prevention, repression, and reformation,” delivers
lectures on--(1) Penal Legislation; (2) Constitutional and Criminal
Law; (3) the Law of Evidence. These lectures are open to the public
and King’s Inns students, who have credit for the Term’s lectures,
and those who have credit for the academic year have their names
reported to the Benchers.
The Law Professors also examine all candidates for degrees in
Law. These degrees, like those in the other professional schools,
can only be obtained after a course of legal study or strict
examinations in Law.
THE COLLEGE SOCIETIES.
THE COLLEGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY, which was formed in 1770, had in
1794 come into collision with the Governing Body of the College,
in consequence of the action of many of the Graduates of some
years’ standing, who, though they were no longer subject to College
discipline, continued to be active members of the Society, and
acted without respect to the orders of the Board. The Society was
consequently excluded from the College, and a new Association
of the Students, under the same name, was organised. Their
meetings for debate were permitted by the Board, on the distinct
understanding that they would not choose for discussion any
question of modern politics, or admit into their proceedings any
allusion to such subjects. They continued to meet in the old rooms,
now the Common Room of the Fellows and Professors, until 1815,
when they again got into trouble with the College authorities, who
insisted that they should expel, without discussion, two of the
members of the Society whose conduct in its debates was disapproved
of by the Board. The discussions upon the private business of the
Society became imbued by party spirit, and the younger members,
who exceeded in number the seniors, who had greater experience
and wisdom, took upon themselves the management of the Historical
Society, and it became continually engaged in angry debates. The
Board consequently insisted that Junior Sophisters should be no
longer admitted as members, and ordered a committee of five to
be appointed to settle all private business of the Society. Four
of the five refused to act, and the result was that on the 5th
of February, 1815, the last debate was held. It is a strange
coincidence that, shortly afterwards, similar difficulties arose
between the Cambridge _Union_ and the Cambridge University
authorities. In the month of March, 1817,[106] Mr. Whewell was
President. Dr. Wood, at that time Vice-Chancellor, took with him
the Proctors, together with a Tutor from Trinity College, and
another from St. John’s: they proceeded to the place of meeting
for debate, at the Red Lion Inn. The Proctors were sent into the
room to desire the members to disperse, and to meet no more. The
President requested the Proctors to retire, in order that the
Society might discuss the subject. This they refused to do. At
last a deputation, consisting of Mr. Whewell (afterwards Master
of Trinity), Mr. Thirlwall (afterwards Bishop of St. David’s),
and Mr. Sheridan, was permitted to have an interview with the
Vice-Chancellor. The deputation urged their claims strongly, but
the Vice-Chancellor insisted that, while they might conclude the
present debate, they should not meet again for a similar purpose.
After frequent petitions to the Board, supported by the Junior
Fellows, the Historical Society was again, on the 16th November,
1843, permitted to meet within the walls of the College, on which
occasion William Connor Magee, Scholar, afterwards Archbishop of
York, delivered, as Auditor of the Society, an opening address of
remarkable eloquence and of great promise, which produced an effect
such as has never yet been equalled in the Society. Since that
period the College Historical Society continues to meet regularly
for debate within the College walls. Junior Sophisters are again
admitted as members, but the subjects for discussion must always,
in the first instance, receive the approval of the Board. The
Society has been allowed, moreover, to have Reading and Committee
Rooms within the College. During the half-century which has elapsed
since the restoration of the Society, perfect harmony has existed
between the members and the Governing Body of the College.
THE PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.--During the year 1842, some of the
students of Trinity College whose age and reputation did not
warrant their seeking admission into the leading scientific
societies of Dublin, but who were anxious to improve themselves in
knowledge and in the art of composition, combined to form a Society
called the Dublin Philosophical Society, the object of which was
the reading of papers on scientific and literary subjects, and the
discussion of these papers by the members after they were read. The
first meeting was held in November, 1842, in a room in Marlborough
Street, and the first volume of their transactions was published at
the end of 1843.
In the beginning of 1845, after the Historical Society had been
received back within the walls of the College, the Committee
sought permission to have the use of one of the lecture-rooms for
the purposes of their meetings. This was granted. The name of the
Society was changed into “The Dublin University Philosophical
Society,” and new rules were adopted, which were required by the
closer connection of the Society with Trinity College. The members
were nearly all graduates, and although junior students were by
no means excluded from the Society, few of them were disposed
to join in the proceedings. The Society continued to exist for
some years, but the members, being generally senior men, were too
soon called away from aiding in its meetings by the requirements
of professional or official duties. This Society published five
volumes of Transactions, containing papers by young men, many of
whom afterwards became distinguished in science and literature.
The Society having fallen too much into the hands of graduates, in
the year 1854 the undergraduates, feeling the want of a similar
organisation which should give them free scope for their own
literary exertions, formed a new Society called “The Undergraduate
Philosophical Society,” the ruling body of which was composed of
students who had not taken their B.A. degrees. The new Society
became rapidly popular among the students of the College, and
its numbers largely increased. The first Philosophical Society
having been at length discontinued, that which was managed by the
undergraduates took its place as the University Philosophical
Society. All undergraduates are now admissible as members, and at
present it so happens that the majority of the officers of the
Society and the Committee are graduates.
At the first, the spirit which actuated the former Philosophical
Society influenced its younger sister, and scientific subjects
formed the main topic of discussion. After one or two sessions,
essays and discussions on literary subjects were introduced,
followed by poetry, fiction, biography, and history; so that
ultimately questions of abstract science disappeared from the
proceedings of the Philosophical Society, and questions of pure
science are now discussed at the meetings of the University
Biological Association and the University Experimental Science
Association.
THE THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY.--Shortly after the Divinity School was
placed upon its present basis, it was found that a place of meeting
was required where theological students could discuss the important
questions which formed the subjects to which their attention was
directed. The Society was founded outside the College on November
23, 1838. Its first presidents were Rev. Doctor Singer, then a
Junior Fellow, the Rev. Robert J. M‘Ghee, and the Rev. Charles
M. Fleury. The Society met in a room in Upper Sackville Street,
and the discussions of the members were very much confined to the
Roman Catholic controversy. It was soon found necessary that the
Society should be brought more under the control of the teachers
in the Divinity School, and in 1860 the then Regius Professor of
Divinity was appointed President; the other Professors in the
Divinity School, along with the assistant Divinity teachers,
were made Vice-Presidents; and since that year the Society meets
in a public room in the College. Dr. Butcher, the then Regius
Professor, always presided at the weekly meetings up to 1866, when
he became Bishop of Meath. His successor, Dr. Salmon, gave the same
unwearied attention to the Society until he became Provost, and
the discussions of the Society, which now take a much wider range
in Theology, are always conducted under the control of the Regius
Professor, or of Archbishop King’s Lecturer in Divinity.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter ending)]
[Illustration: CANDELABRUM. EXAMINATION HALL.
CARVED OAK--GILT.]
FOOTNOTES:
[98] These stamp duties had been imposed on the English
Universities by an English Act of Parliament (55 Geo. III., cap.
184), but were not exacted in Ireland. In 1842, when Sir Robert
Peel imposed an Income Tax on England, from which Ireland was
exempted, he assimilated the stamp duties in the two countries
in order to make up for the relaxation of the Income Tax in the
case of Ireland. A few years afterwards, when the Income Tax was
extended to Ireland, the stamp duties were still exacted.
[99] In the case of scholars not students in Divinity, two-thirds
of these lectures sufficed for the term. At the present, Divinity
students are obliged to attend every lecture in the term, except
one, in each subject.
[100] From a calculation made in 1880, there were at that time
2,322 names of holders of Divinity Testimoniums in the University
Calendar for that year. Of these there were then serving as
clergymen in Ireland, 841; in England, 638; in the Colonies,
unaccounted for, and dead, 843. Of holders of Divinity Testimoniums
from the disestablishment of the Irish Church in 1869 to 1880, 89
were clergymen in England, 121 in Ireland, and 30 were unaccounted
for. Of those who obtained the Divinity Testimonium from 1866 to
1880, 170 were in England, 187 in Ireland serving as clergymen, and
67 unaccounted for.
[101] James Macartney was a native of the County of Armagh. He
pursued his studies partly in Dublin, but mostly in London. He was
not a graduate of the University, nor does he appear to have ever
been a student in Arts. He became in 1800 a member of the London
College of Surgeons, and shortly afterwards commenced to lecture
on Anatomy and Physiology in St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, London.
Macartney died March 6, 1843, aged 73 years. He left a sum of money
to defray the cost of editing and publishing an account of his life
and labours. This task was committed to the care of his nephew, at
one time his Demonstrator, Hugh Carlile, or Carlisle, who died in
1860, as Professor of Anatomy and Physiology, at Queen’s College,
Belfast, before he made any marked progress in this work. The
executors then handed the material left partly sorted by Carlisle
to Dr. E. Perceval Wright, but on the decease of the executors,
while the work was in preparation, it was found that the money for
the book was not forthcoming, and the wishes of Macartney have not
yet been carried into effect.
[102] See Dr. Stubbs’ _History of the University of Dublin_, p. 257.
[103] _Ibid._, p. 258.
[104] He published his treatise on Analytic Geometry in 1819.
[105] It may be well to remark that the University of Dublin was
really in advance of Cambridge in encouraging new studies at the
B.A. Degree Examination. In 1816 the examination for gold medals
in Classics was established in Dublin; eight years afterwards
Cambridge instituted the Classical Tripos. In 1834 the examination
for Moderatorships in Ethics and Logics was founded in Dublin;
seventeen years after that date the Moral Sciences Tripos was
instituted at Cambridge. In 1833 Theological Examinations, as they
are at present, were first established in Dublin; this example
was followed by Cambridge in 1856. In the latter year the Provost
and Senior Fellows founded a Moderatorship in Law and History.
Cambridge did the same twelve years after. In one case the two
Universities acted simultaneously, in founding in 1851 the Honour
Degree Examination in the Natural Sciences.
[106] _William Whewell_, by Isaac Todhunter, vol. i., page 8.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]
CHAPTER VI.
THE OBSERVATORY, DUNSINK.
Provost Baldwin held absolute sway in this University for forty-one
years. His memory is well preserved here. The Bursar still
dispenses the satisfactory revenues which Baldwin left to the
College. None of us ever can forget the marble angels round the
figure of the dying Provost on which we used to gaze during the
pangs of the Examination Hall.
Baldwin died in 1758, and was succeeded by Francis Andrews,
a Fellow of seventeen years’ standing. As to the scholastic
acquirements of Andrews, all I can find is a statement that he was
complimented by the polite Professors of Padua on the elegance
and purity with which he discoursed to them in Latin. Andrews was
also reputed to be a skilful lawyer. He was certainly a Privy
Councillor and a prominent member of the Irish House of Commons,
and his social qualities were excellent. Perhaps it was Baldwin’s
example that stimulated a desire in Andrews to become a benefactor
to his College. He accordingly bequeathed a sum of £3,000 and an
annual income of £250 wherewith to build and endow an Astronomical
Observatory in the University. The figures just stated ought to
be qualified by the words of cautious Ussher (afterwards the
first Professor of Astronomy), that “this money was to arise from
an accumulation of a part of his property, to commence upon a
particular contingency happening in his family.” The astronomical
endowment was soon in jeopardy by litigation. Andrews thought he
had provided for his relations by leaving to them certain leasehold
interests connected with the Provost’s estate. The law courts,
however, held that these interests were not at the disposal of
the testator, and handed them over to Hely Hutchinson, the next
Provost. The disappointed relations then petitioned the Irish
Parliament to redress this grievance by transferring to them
the monies designed by Andrews for the Observatory. It would
not be right, they contended, that the kindly intentions of the
late Provost towards his kindred should be frustrated for the
sake of maintaining what they described as “a purely ornamental
institution.” The authorities of the College protested against this
claim. Counsel were heard, and a Committee of the House made a
report declaring the situation of the relations to be a hard one.
Accordingly, a compromise was made, and the dispute terminated.
The selection of a site for the new Astronomical Observatory was
made by the Board of Trinity College. The beautiful neighbourhood
of Dublin offered a choice of excellent localities. On the north
side of the Liffey an Observatory could have been admirably placed,
either on the remarkable promontory of Howth or on the elevation
of which Dunsink is the summit. On the south side of Dublin there
are several eminences that would have been suitable: the breezy
heaths at Foxrock combine all necessary conditions; the obelisk
hill at Killiney would have given one of the most picturesque sites
for an Observatory in the world; while near Delgany two or three
other good situations could be mentioned. But the Board of those
pre-railway days was naturally guided by the question of proximity.
Dunsink was accordingly chosen as the most suitable site within the
distance of a reasonable walk from Trinity College.
The northern boundary of the Phoenix Park approaches the little
river Tolka, which winds through a succession of delightful bits
of sylvan scenery, such as may be found in the wide demesne of
Abbotstown and the classic shades of Glasnevin. From the banks of
the Tolka, on the opposite side of the park, the pastures ascend
in a gentle slope to culminate at Dunsink, where at a distance of
half-a-mile from the stream, of four miles from Dublin, and at
a height of 300 feet above the sea, now stands the Observatory.
From the commanding position of Dunsink a magnificent view is
obtained. To the east the sea is visible, while the southern
prospect over the valley of the Liffey is bounded by a range of
hills and mountains extending from Killiney to Bray Head, thence to
the Little Sugar Loaf, the Two Rock and the Three Rock Mountains,
over the flank of which the summit of the Great Sugar Loaf is just
perceptible. Directly in front opens the fine valley of Glenasmole,
with Kippure Mountain, while the range can be followed to its
western extremity. The climate of Dunsink is well suited for
astronomical observation. No doubt here, as elsewhere in Ireland,
clouds are abundant, but mists or haze are comparatively unusual,
and fogs are almost unknown.
[Illustration: DUNSINK OBSERVATORY.]
The legal formalities to be observed in assuming occupation
exacted a delay of many months: accordingly, it was not until
the 10th December, 1782, that a contract could be made with Mr.
Graham Moyers for the erection of a meridian room and a dome for
an Equatorial, in conjunction with a becoming residence for the
Astronomer. Before the work was commenced at Dunsink, the Board
thought it expedient to appoint the first Professor of Astronomy.
They met for this purpose on the 22nd January, 1783, and chose
the Reverend Henry Ussher, a Senior Fellow of Trinity College,
Dublin The wisdom of the appointment was immediately shown by the
assiduity with which Ussher engaged in founding the Observatory.
In three years he had erected the buildings and equipped them with
instruments, several of which were of his own invention. On the
19th of February, 1785, a special grant of £200 was made by the
Board to Dr. Ussher as some recompense for his labours. It happened
that the Observatory was not the only scientific institution which
came into being in Ireland at this period: the newly-kindled
ardour for the pursuit of knowledge led, at the same time, to the
foundation of the Royal Irish Academy. By a fitting coincidence,
the first memoir published in the Transactions of the Royal Irish
Academy was by the first Andrews Professor of Astronomy. It was
read on the 13th of June, 1785, and bore the title, “Account of
the Observatory belonging to Trinity College,” by the Reverend
H. Ussher, D.D., M.R.I.A., F.R.S. This communication shows the
extensive design that had been originally intended for Dunsink,
only a part of which was, however, carried out. For instance, two
long corridors running north and south from the central edifice,
which are figured in the paper, never developed into bricks
and mortar. We are not told why the original scheme had to be
contracted; but perhaps the reason may be not unconnected with a
remark of Ussher’s, that the College had already advanced from
its own funds a sum considerably exceeding the original bequest.
A picture of the building, showing also the dome for the South
Equatorial, which was erected many years later, is given on page
133.
Ussher died in 1790. During his brief career at the Observatory,
he observed eclipses, and is stated to have done other scientific
work. The minutes of the Board declare that the infant institution
had already obtained celebrity by his labours, and they urge the
claims of his widow to a pension on the ground that the disease
from which he died had been contracted by his nightly vigils. The
Board also promised a grant of fifty guineas as a help to bring out
Dr. Ussher’s sermons. They advanced twenty guineas to his widow
towards the publication of his astronomical papers. They ordered
his bust to be executed for the Observatory, and offered “The Death
of Ussher” as the subject of a prize essay; but, so far as I can
find, neither the sermons nor the papers, neither the bust nor the
prize essay, ever came into being.
There was keen competition for the Chair of Astronomy, which
the death of Ussher vacated. The two candidates were Rev. John
Brinkley, of Caius College, Cambridge, a Senior Wrangler (born at
Woodbridge, Suffolk, in 1763), and Mr. Stack, Fellow of Trinity
College, Dublin, and author of a book on Optics. A majority of the
Board at first supported Stack, while Provost Hely Hutchinson and
one or two others supported Brinkley. In those days the Provost
had a veto at elections, so that ultimately Stack was withdrawn,
and Brinkley was elected. This took place on the 11th December,
1790. The national press of the day commented on the preference
shown to the young Englishman, Brinkley, over his Irish rival. An
animated controversy ensued. The Provost himself condescended to
enter the lists, and to vindicate his policy by a long letter in
the _Public Register or Freeman’s Journal_, of 21st December, 1790.
This letter was anonymous, but its authorship is obvious. It gives
the correspondence with Maskelyne and other eminent astronomers,
whose advice and guidance had been sought by the Provost. It also
contends that “the transactions of the Board ought not to be
canvassed in the newspapers.” For this reference, as well as for
much other information, I am indebted to my friend the Rev. John W.
Stubbs, D.D.
The next event in the history of the Observatory was the issue of
Letters Patent (32 Geo. III., A.D. 1792), in which it is recited
that “We grant and ordain that there shall be for ever hereafter
a Professor of Astronomy, on the foundation of Dr. Andrews, to be
called and known by the name of the Royal Astronomer of Ireland.”
The letters prescribe the various duties of the Astronomer, and
the mode of his election. They lay down regulations as to the
conduct of the astronomical work, and as to the choice of an
assistant. They direct that the Provost and Senior Fellows shall
make a thorough inspection of the Observatory once every year,
in June or July; and this duty was first undertaken on the 5th
of July, 1792. It will thus be noted that the date fixed for the
celebration of the Tercentenary of the University happens to be the
centenary of the first Visitation of the Observatory. The Visitors
on the first occasion were--A. Murray, Matthew Young, George
Hall, and John Barrett. They record that they find the buildings,
books, and instruments in good condition; but the chief feature in
this report, as well as in many which followed it, related to a
circumstance to which we have not yet referred.
In the original equipment of the Observatory, Ussher, with the
natural ambition of a founder, desired to place in it a telescope
of more magnificent proportions than could be found anywhere
else. The Board gave a spirited support to this enterprise,
and negotiations were entered into with the most eminent
instrument-maker of those days. This was Jesse Ramsden (1735-1800),
famous as the improver of the sextant, as the constructor of the
great Theodolite used by General Roy in the English Survey, and as
the inventor of the Dividing Engine for graduating astronomical
instruments. Ramsden had built for Sir George Schuckburgh the
largest and most perfect Equatorial ever attempted. He had
constructed mural quadrants for Padua and Verona, which elicited
the wonder of astronomers, when Dr. Maskelyne declared he could
detect no error in their graduation as large as two seconds and
a-half. But Ramsden maintained that even better results would be
obtained by superseding the entire quadrant by the circle. He
obtained the means of testing this prediction when he completed
a superb circle for Palermo of five feet diameter. Finding
his anticipations were realised, he desired to apply the same
principles on a still grander scale. Ramsden was in this mood when
he met with Dr. Ussher. The enthusiasm of the Astronomer and the
instrument-maker communicated itself to the Board, and a tremendous
circle, to be ten feet in diameter, was forthwith projected.
Projected, but never carried out. After Ramsden had to some extent
completed a ten-foot circle, he found such difficulties that he
tried a nine-foot, and this again he discarded for an eight-foot,
which was ultimately accomplished, though not entirely by himself.
Notwithstanding the contraction from the vast proportions
originally designed, the completed instrument must still be
regarded as a colossal piece of astronomical workmanship. Even at
this day I do not know that any other Observatory except Dunsink
can show a circle eight feet in diameter graduated all round.
I think it is Professor Piazzi Smyth who tells us how grateful
he was to find a large telescope he had ordered finished by the
opticians on the very day they had promised it. The day was
perfectly correct; it was only the year that was wrong. A somewhat
remarkable experience in this direction is chronicled by the early
reports of the Visitors to the Dunsink Observatory. I cannot find
the date on which the great circle was ordered from Ramsden, but it
is fixed with sufficient precision by an allusion in Ussher’s paper
to the Royal Irish Academy, which shows that by the 13th June,
1785, the order had been given, but that the abandonment of the
ten-foot scale had not then been contemplated. It was reasonable
that the Board should allow Ramsden ample time for the completion
of a work at once so elaborate and so novel. It could not have
been finished in a year, nor would there have been much reason for
complaint if the maker had found he required two or even three
years more.
Seven years gone, and still no telescope, was the condition in
which the Board found matters at their first Visitation in 1792.
They had, however, assurances from Ramsden that the instrument
would be completed within the year; but, alas for such promises!
another seven years rolled on, and in 1799 the place for the great
circle was still vacant at Dunsink. Ramsden had fallen into bad
health, and the Board considerately directed that “inquiries should
be made.” Next year there was still no progress, so the Board were
roused to threaten Ramsden with a suit at law; but the menace was
never executed, for the malady of the great optician grew worse,
and he died that year.
Affairs had now assumed a critical aspect, for the College had
advanced much money to Ramsden during these fifteen years, and the
instrument was still unfinished. An appeal was made by the Provost
to Dr. Maskelyne, the Astronomer-Royal of England, for his advice
and kindly offices in this emergency. Maskelyne responds--in terms
calculated to allay the anxiety of the Bursar--“Mr. Ramsden has
left property behind him, and the College can be in no danger of
losing both their money and the instrument.” The business of
Ramsden was then undertaken by Berge, who proceeded to finish the
great circle quite as deliberately as his predecessor. After four
years Berge promised the instrument in the following August, but it
did not come. Two years later (1806) the Professor complains that
he can get no answer from Berge. In 1807 it is stated that Berge
will send the telescope in a month. He did not; but in the next
year (1808), about twenty-three years after the great circle was
ordered, it was erected at Dunsink, where it is still to be seen.
The following circumstances have been authenticated by the
signatures of Provosts, Proctors, Bursars, and other College
dignitaries:--In 1793 the Board ordered two of the clocks at the
Observatory to be sent to Mr. Crosthwaite for repairs. Seven years
later, in 1800, Mr. Crosthwaite was asked if the clocks were ready.
This impatience was clearly unreasonable, for even in four years
more, 1804, we find the two clocks were still in hands. Two years
later, in 1806, the Board determined to take vigorous action by
asking the Bursar to call upon Crosthwaite. This evidently produced
some effect, for in the following year, 1807, the Professor had
no doubt that the clocks would be speedily returned. After eight
years more, in 1815, one of the clocks was still being repaired,
and so it was in 1816, which is the last record we have of these
interesting timepieces. Astronomers are, however, accustomed to
deal with such stupendous periods in their calculations, that even
the time taken to repair a clock seems but small in comparison.
The long tenure of the Chair of Astronomy by Brinkley is divided
into two nearly equal periods by the year in which the great circle
was erected. Brinkley was eighteen years waiting for his telescope,
and he had eighteen years more in which to use it. During the first
of these periods Brinkley devoted himself to mathematical research;
during the latter he became a celebrated astronomer. Brinkley’s
mathematical labours procured for their author some reputation as a
mathematician. They appear to be works of considerable mathematical
elegance, but not indicating any great power of original thought.
Perhaps it has been prejudicial to Brinkley’s fame in this
direction that he was immediately followed in his chair by so
mighty a genius as William Rowan Hamilton.
After the great circle had been at last erected, Brinkley was
able to begin his astronomical work in earnest. Nor was there
much time to lose. He was already 45 years old, a year older than
was Herschel when he commenced his immortal career at Slough.
Stimulated by the consciousness of having the command of an
instrument of unique perfection, Brinkley loftily attempted the
very highest class of astronomical research. He resolved to measure
anew with his own eye and with his own hand the constants of
aberration and of nutation. He also strove to solve that great
problem of the universe, the discovery of the distance of a fixed
star.
These were noble problems, and they were nobly attacked. But to
appraise with justice this work of Brinkley, done seventy years
ago, we must not apply to it the same criteria as we would think
right to apply to similar work were it done now. We do not any
longer use Brinkley’s constant of aberration, nor do we now think
that Brinkley’s determinations of the star-distances were reliable.
But, nevertheless, his investigations exercised a marked influence
on the progress of science: they stimulated the study of the
principles on which exact measurements were to be conducted.
Brinkley had another profession in addition to that of an
astronomer. He was a divine. When a man endeavours to pursue two
distinct occupations concurrently, it will be equally easy to
explain why his career should be successful, or why it should be
the reverse. If he succeeds, he will, of course, exemplify the
wisdom of having provided two strings to his bow. Should he fail,
it is, of course, because he has attempted to sit on two stools
at once. In Brinkley’s case, his two professions must be likened
to the two strings rather than to the two stools. It is true that
his practical experience of a clerical life was very slender. He
had made no attempt to combine the routine of a parish with his
labours in the Observatory. Nor do we associate a special eminence
in any department of religious work with his name. If, however, we
are to measure Brinkley’s merits as a divine by the ecclesiastical
preferment which he received, his services to theology must have
rivalled his services to astronomy. Having been raised step by step
in the church, he was at last appointed to the See of Cloyne in
1826 as the successor of Bishop Berkeley.
Now, though it was permissible for the Archdeacon to be also the
Andrews Professor, yet when the Archdeacon became a Bishop it
was understood that he should transfer his residence from the
Observatory to the Palace. The Chair of Astronomy accordingly
became vacant. Brinkley’s subsequent career seems to have been
devoted entirely to ecclesiastical matters, and for the last ten
years of his life he did not contribute a paper to any scientific
society. Arago, after a characteristic lament that Brinkley should
have forsaken the pursuit of Science for the temporal and spiritual
attractions of a Bishopric, pays a tribute to the conscientiousness
of the quondam astronomer:--
“A partir du jour ou il fut revêtu de l’episcopat, l’homme dont
toute la vie avait été consacrée jusque-là à la contemplation du
firmament et à la solution des questions sublimes qui recèlent
les mouvements des astres, divorca complétement avec ces douces,
avec ces entraînantes occupations, pour se livrer sans partage
aux devoirs de sa charge nouvelle, afin d’échapper, je suppose, à
la tentation, l’ex-Directeur de l’Observatoire Royal d’Irlande,
l’ex-Andrews Professor d’Astronomie de l’Université n’avait pas
même dans son palais la plus modeste lunette. On doit la révélation
de se fait presque incroyable, à l’indiscrétion d’une personne qui
s’étant trouvée chez l’évêque de Cloyne un jour d’éclipse de Lune,
eut le déplaisir, faute d’instruments, de ne pouvoir suivre la
marche du phénomène qu’avec ses yeux.”
The good Bishop died on the 13th September, 1835. He was buried in
the Chapel of Trinity College, and a fine monument to his memory
is a familiar object at the foot of the noble old staircase of the
library. The best memorial of Brinkley is his admirable book on the
_Elements of Plane Astronomy_. It passed through many editions in
his lifetime, and even at the present day the same work, revised
first by Dr. Luby and more recently by the Rev. Dr. Stubbs and Dr.
Brünnow, has a large and well-merited circulation.
On the 4th August, 1805, a few years before the great circle was
erected at the Observatory, William Rowan Hamilton was born in
No. 36, Dominick Street, Dublin. He was educated by his uncle,
the Rev. James Hamilton, at Trim, and his aunt, Jane Sidney
Hamilton. The astounding precocity of the child is thus described
by his biographer, Mr. Graves, to whose laborious and painstaking
execution of his great task I must here make my acknowledgments. Of
William Rowan Hamilton it is asserted that, “continuing a vigorous
child in spirits and playfulness, he was, at three years of age, a
superior reader of English and considerably advanced in arithmetic;
at four, a good geographer; at five, able to read and translate
Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and loving to recite Dryden, Collins,
Milton, and Homer; at eight he has added Italian and French, and
given vent to his feelings in extemporised Latin; and before he is
ten he is a student of Arabic and Sanskrit. And all this knowledge
seems to have been acquired, not indeed without diligence, but
with perfect ease, and applied, as occasion arose, with practical
judgment and tact.”[107]
When Hamilton was seventeen years old (1822), he had written
original mathematical papers, and with two of these--entitled
respectively, “Osculating Parabola to Curves of Double Curvature,”
and “On Contacts between Algebraic Curves and Surfaces”--he paid
a visit to Dr. Brinkley at the Observatory. The Royal Astronomer
was impressed by their value, and desired to see them in a more
developed form. Thus originated an acquaintance between the
scientific veteran, soon to be a Bishop, and the brilliant lad
about to enter college.
After Brinkley had been appointed Bishop of Cloyne in 1826,
Hamilton was immediately mentioned as his probable successor. Mr.
Graves, to whom I am indebted for these particulars, assures us
that Hamilton never put himself forward until a week before the
election, when he received an urgent letter from his tutor, Mr.
Boyton, to say that the Board were favourably disposed towards him.
On the 16th June, 1827, the undergraduate of twenty-two, William
Rowan Hamilton, was unanimously elected to the Chair of Astronomy.
Nor was he without formidable competitors. Airy was a candidate,
and so were some of the Fellows of Trinity College; yet a general
approval, almost unanimous, ratified the choice of the Board.
We say almost unanimous, because there was at least one weighty
opinion on the other side. Bishop Brinkley thought that Hamilton
had acted imprudently in accepting the post, and that it would have
been wiser for him to have sought a Fellowship. With Hamilton’s
life before us, we can now see that the Bishop was not right.
The leisure and the seclusion of the Observatory were necessary
conditions for Hamilton’s colossal labours. After his election to
the Chair of Astronomy, Hamilton proceeded to his degree in the
usual manner; but before doing so, he had, as an undergraduate,
to perform the somewhat anomalous duty of examining graduates in
the higher branches of mathematics for Bishop Law’s mathematical
premium.
The history of Dunsink Observatory for the next 38 years may be
epitomised in a single word--Quaternions. It will be unnecessary to
refer in any detail to the great career of our great mathematician.
The early promise of the marvellous child and the brilliant career
of the unparalleled student soon bore fruit in the congenial
atmosphere of the Observatory. Conical Refraction, the Theory of
Rays, the general method of Dynamics--any one of these researches
would have conferred fame of which the greatest mathematician might
have been proud, but with Hamilton these were merely incidental to
the great work of his life. With huge industry he cultivated his
powers, he wrought his mighty system of Quaternions, and found in
it a weapon adequate to deal with the most profound mathematical
problems of nature. It is not Hamilton’s fault if others have found
that to wield this sword of a giant the arm of the giant is also
necessary. Most of us feel satisfied if we know enough to be able
to reverence the two awful volumes which every mathematician likes
to see on his shelves, and which he generally leaves there.
So great a personality as Hamilton has naturally gathered around
itself much biographical interest. The intimacy between Hamilton
and Wordsworth has given many interesting pages to Mr. Graves’
book, and how intimate the friendship became may be conjectured
from the account of their first meeting. We are told how Hamilton
walked back with Wordsworth to see him home after a delightful
evening, and how Wordsworth then turned to see Hamilton back, and
how the process was repeated I know not how often. It appears that
Hamilton submitted his poetic effusions to his friend, and they
were returned with gentle criticism, though with an occasional
admission by Wordsworth that the mathematician’s verses possessed
genuine feeling. Then there is the visit of Wordsworth to Dunsink,
where to this day a beautiful shady walk bears his name. Hamilton
enjoyed the privilege of intimacy with many cultivated intellects.
He knew Coleridge; with Sir John Herschel he was in frequent
communication; and he had many lady correspondents, including
Maria Edgeworth. The bulk of Hamilton’s scientific correspondence
was with the late Professor De Morgan, a man whose intellectual
endowments were of such a different type to those of Hamilton,
that, except in being both mathematicians, they had but little in
common. On the death of Hamilton, De Morgan writes to Sir John
Herschel (Sept. 13, 1865):--
“W. R. Hamilton was an intimate friend whom I spoke to once
in my life--at Babbage’s about 1830; but for 30 years we have
corresponded. I _saw_ him a second time at the dinner you got at
the Freemason’s when you came from the Cape, but I could not get
near enough to speak.”[108]
The Observatory had the usual equipment of a transit instrument, a
circle, and an equatorial, but no further additions were made to
the instruments during the long sojourn of Hamilton. Observations
were made by the assistant, Mr. Thomson, who, after a life passed
in the service, retired in 1874, and lived a few years to enjoy
the pension conferred on him by the Board. Just before Sir W.
Hamilton’s death an important donation was received by the College.
I shall here mention the circumstances under which it was made.
The particulars were related to me partly by the donor himself,
and partly by the late Earl of Rosse. The chief incidents in the
narrative may be found in the life of De Morgan[109] to which I
have already referred.
Sir James South was a medical man who acquired considerable wealth
early in life, and then devoted himself with great assiduity to
astronomy. He became an expert observer, and in conjunction with
Sir John Herschel formed a series of double star measures that
obtained much fame. Honours flowed in upon South; he received a
pension and a knighthood; and he prepared for further astronomical
work. His first care was to procure a superior telescope, and from
Cauchoix, a French optician of renown, he procured an object-glass
12 inches in diameter, and possessing great optical perfection.
For this lens, or rather pair of lenses, he paid either £800 or
£1,000. South returned with this prize to his observatory at
Campden Hill, Kensington, and commenced to have the mounting
executed in a manner befitting the optical excellence of the lens.
Brunel designed the revolving dome; it was made of mahogany, and
cost, I believe, £2,000; and inside this building the eminent firm
of Troughton & Simms were called upon to erect the telescope. But
sad troubles followed, of which an entertaining account is given in
De Morgan’s Life (p. 61), and the mounting was a dismal failure.
Sir James South, at all events in the later part of his career,
dearly loved a fray. He commissioned a friend to bear a hostile
message to a distinguished scientific contemporary. The duel never
came off. Perhaps, even if it had, the results might not have been
sanguinary, for it had been suggested that the two astronomers
would, of course, have been placed at telescopic distances apart.
But to those to whom he was attached his loyalty and devotion
were unbounded; his purse and his influence were alike at their
disposal. To these characteristics of South we owe the great
equatorial telescope now at Dunsink Observatory.
[Illustration: SOUTH EQUATORIAL, DUNSINK.]
The precious object-glass remained in his possession for about
thirty years, until such time as the late Earl of Rosse was
installed as Chancellor of the University. The Earl was one of Sir
James’ warm friends, and he celebrated the occasion by presenting
the great object-glass to the University of Dublin. The date of the
gift is 17th February, 1863.
It was thus only a few years before Sir W. R. Hamilton’s death
that Dunsink Observatory possessed a really fine objective; but
it was only an objective, it was not a telescope. The engrossing
labours of Sir W. R. Hamilton’s mathematical work, his advancing
years, and his declining health, did not permit him to undertake
the arduous labour of its erection. Sir James South found in this
a sad grievance. I have heard him denounce this inaction with that
vigorous language which he was accustomed to use. He had even
offered to contribute liberally to the expenses of mounting, if the
College authorities would put it in hands. It was not, however,
until Sir W. R. Hamilton’s successor was appointed (1865) that the
work was done. South lived just long enough to know that the great
instrument was at last being erected. A view of the instrument,
named the South Equatorial, after the donor, is shown in the
adjoining illustration.
The successor of Sir William Rowan Hamilton as Andrews Professor
of Astronomy was Dr. Francis Brünnow. He was a German by birth,
who had distinguished himself by various astronomical researches,
and by an excellent work on Practical Astronomy. He had previously
occupied the Chair of Astronomy at the University of Michigan.
When Brünnow came to Dunsink, his first care was the mounting
of the great South Equatorial. A building was erected on the
lawn, surmounted by a dome, and fitted with revolving machinery
by Messrs. Grubb, who also constructed the tube and stand. A
micrometer, from the Berlin firm of Messrs. Pistor & Martin, was
added, and thus the South object-glass, forty years after it was
made, came into actual use.
Dr. Brünnow devoted himself chiefly to the investigation of the
Parallax of Stars. In this he was, indeed, following the traditions
of the Observatory as laid down by Brinkley. Brünnow published two
parts of his researches on this difficult subject. These papers are
now regarded as a classical authority in this branch of astronomy.
The pains which he took to eliminate error, and the consummate
manner in which he has discussed his results, show him to have been
both a skilful observer and an ingenious computer.
The fundamental equipment of the modern Observatory must include
an equatorial and a meridian circle. Dunsink was now provided with
the former, but there was no meridian circle. The great Ramsden
instrument had become obsolete. The old transit had also seen more
than half-a-century of service, and could not be relied on for
accurate work. A splendid meridian circle was therefore ordered,
by the liberality of the Board, from Messrs. Pistor & Martin,
of Berlin. It was erected in 1872-1873, at a cost of £800. The
aperture of this instrument is 6·4 inches and the length is 8 feet.
The circles are divided to two-minute spaces, and read by eight
microscopes, four on each side. The instrument can be reversed, and
has north and south collimators. The Meridian Room and the fine
instrument just described are shown in the subjoined illustration.
[Illustration: MERIDIAN ROOM, DUNSINK.]
In 1874 Dr. Brünnow resigned, and was succeeded by the present
writer; and about the same time Dr. Ralph Copeland was appointed
assistant. In the following year Dr. Copeland went to the Earl
of Crawford’s Observatory at Dunecht, and he now fills the
distinguished position of Royal Astronomer of Scotland. Dr.
Copeland was succeeded as assistant at Dunsink by Mr. C. E. Burton.
Failing health caused Mr. Burton’s resignation in 1878, and Dr.
J. L. E. Dreyer then came to Dunsink, where he remained till the
death of the late Dr. Romney Robinson in 1882 created a vacancy
in the post of Astronomer at Armagh, to which Dr. Dreyer was
then appointed. His place at Dunsink was filled by Dr. Arthur A.
Rambaut, the present assistant.
Among the additions made to the Observatory under my direction
may be mentioned an electric chronograph for recording transits.
A time service has also been in operation for many years, by
which the standard mean time clock in the Observatory controls,
on Jones’ system, the Front clock and the Board-room clock in the
Port and Docks Office, Westmoreland Street, Dublin. The ball falls
at this office at 1 p.m., Greenwich time, and the fact of falling
reports itself automatically at Dunsink, while the Front clock
reports itself at Dunsink every minute. But the chief addition to
the Observatory in late years is the superb reflecting telescope
for photographic purposes, which is the gift of Isaac Roberts,
Esq., F.R.S., of Crowborough, Sussex. This instrument has been
established in the small dome on the top of the Observatory.
The last chronicle of Dunsink that it may be necessary here to
mention is that Sir Robert Ball was appointed, on 20th February,
1892, to succeed Professor J. Couch Adams as Lowndean Professor of
Astronomy in the University of Cambridge.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter ending)]
FOOTNOTES:
[107] Graves’ _Life of Hamilton_, vol. i., p. 46.
[108] Life of De Morgan, by his wife, p. 333.
[109] _Ibid._
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]
CHAPTER VII.
“_The Books, but especially the Parchments._”
THE LIBRARY.
The Library had its beginning in 1601, from a subscription by the
officers and soldiers of Queen Elizabeth’s army in Ireland. Prior
to that, indeed, there were a few books; a list (dated 1600) of
forty books, ten of which were MS., has been preserved, and was
printed by Dr. J. K. Ingram in an appendix to his _Address to the
Library Association_. It includes--of classical authors--Euripides,
Plato, Aristotle, Cicero. In 1601, however, in order to commemorate
the battle of Kinsale, in which the Spanish troops and their Irish
allies were defeated, the troops subscribed £700[110] to purchase
books for the newly-founded College. “Then souldiers,” says Dr.
Bernard, “were for the advancement of learning.” Possibly; but it
is significant that the money was subscribed “out of the arrears
of their pay.” However, the example, as we shall see, proved
fruitful. The money was entrusted to Luke Challoner and James
Ussher (afterwards Primate), who accordingly went to London to make
their purchases. It happened that Sir Thomas Bodley was at the same
time buying books for his library at Oxford, and he and Ussher
consulted, to their mutual advantage.
It may be asked, What notable books did they buy, and what prices
did they pay? As to the first, there exists a rough shelf-list
of books in the Library which must have been drawn up very soon
after this. It is in Challoner’s handwriting, and shows that
rarities were not sought for, but books useful for study and
research. The prices are not recorded, but Challoner has left a
list of the prices he paid for his own books a few years earlier.
A few specimens of these may be interesting. _Scapulæ Lexicon_
cost him 12s.; a Hebrew Bible in 4to, 16s.; an English Bible,
8vo, 6s.; _Stephani Concordantiæ_, 14s.; Cicero: _Opera Omnia_,
8vo, 6s. 8d.; Homer: _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, each 2s. 6d.; an 8vo
_Virgil_, 1s. 4d.; another, in 16mo, 10d. The most expensive books
are--_Mercator’s Tabula_, £3, and _Vatablus_; _Biblia Sacra_
(Hebrew, Greek, Latin), £3 10s. The average price was about 5s. A
few years later we find Challoner and Ussher again in London buying
books for the Library. Chiefly, no doubt, in consequence of their
purchases, the number of books in 1610 was about 4,000. In 1635 the
Library is already mentioned as a matter of pride to the College
by Sir W. Brereton. He specifies a MS. of Roger Bacon, which, he
says, they highly esteem, considering it to be the only copy of
that great man’s _Opus Majus_. Brereton, however, professes himself
sceptical, on the ground that the MS. is so very clean and newly
bound. How the latter fact could militate against the antiquity of
the MS. is not very clear. Brereton also pronounces the Library to
be not well furnished with books. The building, too, he reports as
not large or well contrived.[111]
It was, however, at the Restoration that the Library was at once
raised to the first class, at least as regards MSS., by the
accession of Archbishop Ussher’s library. The fortunes of this
were rather remarkable. During the rebellion of 1641 it was in
Drogheda, the seat of the Archiepiscopal residence, where it was
in great peril of destruction, that place being besieged for four
months. Shortly after the raising of the siege it was transferred
to Chester, and subsequently to Chelsea College. Here, however,
it was not much safer than in Ireland, for the Archbishop having
preached against the authority of the Assembly of Divines, the
House of Commons confiscated his library, the severest punishment
they had it in their power to inflict. Happily, there were two
men in the Assembly of nobler sentiments--Dr. Featley, formerly
chaplain to Archbishop Abbot, and the learned John Selden.[112] By
Selden’s help, Dr. Featley either obtained a grant of the library
or was enabled to purchase it for a small sum, and so preserved it
for the Primate; but part had already been embezzled.
When Ussher was appointed by the Benchers preacher at Lincoln’s
Inn, apartments were appropriated to his use, in which he was able
to place his library, or rather pack up as much of it as remained.
It was his intention to bequeath it to Trinity College, as a token
of gratitude to the place where he had received his education;
but having lost all his other property in the disturbances of the
time, he was obliged to give up this purpose and to leave it to his
daughter, Lady Tyrrell, wife of Sir Timothy Tyrrell. Ussher died in
1656. The library was famous, and Parr, in his _Life of Ussher_,
states that “the King of Denmark and Cardinal Mazarin endeavoured
to obtain it, offering a good price through their agents in
England; but Cromwell having, by an Order in Council, prohibited
its being sold without his consent, it was bought by the soldiers
and officers of the then army in Ireland, who, out of emulation to
the previous noble action of Queen Elizabeth’s army, were incited
by some men of publick spirits to the like performance, and they
had it for much less than it was really worth, or what had been
offered for it before by the agents above-mentioned [viz., for
£2,200]; they had also with it all his manuscripts (which were not
of his own handwriting), as also a choice, though not numerous,
collection of ancient coins. But when this library was brought
over into Ireland, the usurper and his son, who then commanded in
chief there, would not bestow it on the Colledge of Dublin, least
perhaps the gift should not appear so considerable as it would do
by itself; and therefore they gave out that they would reserve it
for a new Colledge or Hall which they said they intended to build
and endow; but it proved that as those were not times, so they
were not persons capable of any such noble or pious work; so that
this library lay in the Castle of Dublin unbestowed and unemployed
all the remaining time of Cromwell’s usurpation; but where this
treasure was kept being left open, many of the books and most of
the best manuscripts were stolen away or else imbezled (_sic_) by
those who were intrusted with them; but after his late Majesty’s
Restauration, when they fell to his disposal, he generously
bestowed them on the Colledge for which they were intended by the
owner, where they now remain.”
Dr. Parr’s account may perhaps require to be modified by comparison
with the following document:--“June 29, 1659.--The Commissioners
of Parliament for the Government of Ireland referred to ‘certain
persons named’ to take a view of the gallery at Cork House and the
armory-room near the Castle, and to consider with workmen which
place may be most convenient for placing Dr. Ussher’s Library,
and to present an estimate of the charge for making Presses and
Chains for the Books in order to their use and security.” On 1st
November following it was ordered “that the Trustees for Trinity
College, as also Dr. Watson, Dr. Gorges, and Mr. Williamson, be
desired to attend the Board and to consider together how the
Library formerly belonging to Dr. Ussher, purchased by the State
and army, may be disposed and fitted for Publick use. And also to
take into consideration a Letter from Dr. Berners [query, Bernard],
as also a Paper delivered by Dr. Jones, concerning the publishing
of some part of the said Library or manuscripts, and of recovering
some part of the said Library being at present abroad in some
men’s hands, albeit they ought to have been returned hither with
the Books as were purchased, or such only as were sent hither and
are in the custody of Mr. Williamson or others. And to inform
themselves in what condition the said Library at present is.
Whether since the coming of the said Books hither any of them have
been lent out or otherwise disposed of--to whom, when, and by whose
order, with what else may concern the Business.”[113]
With respect to the part which the King had in sending the books
to the College, Dr. Ingram seems to suspect that Dr. Parr’s
“effusively loyal spirit led him erroneously to attribute this act
of restitution to Charles II. His Majesty’s consent,” he adds,
“would perhaps be formally necessary, but it seems to have been
really the Irish House of Commons that moved in the matter. In
the Journals of the House under that date, 31 Maii, 1661, appears
an order ‘that the Vice-Chancellor and Provost of the College of
Dublin, and Mr. Richard Lingard, with such others as they will take
to their assistance, be decreed and are hereby empowered, with
all convenient speed, to cause the Library formerly belonging to
the late Lord Primate of Armagh, and purchased by the army, to be
brought from the Castle of Dublin, where they now are, into the
said College, there to be preserved for public use; and the said
persons are likewise to take a catalogue of all the said Library,
both manuscripts and printed books, and to deliver the same into
this House, to be inserted in the Journals of the House.’”[114] I
may add that in the catalogue of MSS. drawn up by George Browne
(afterwards Provost) in 1688 (and printed by Dr. Bernard in his
_Catalogus Manuscriptorum Angliæ et Hiberniæ_), these MSS. are
stated to have been given by the “Conventus generalis habitus
Dublinii an. 1666.” It seems probable, too, that Dr. Parr has
somewhat exaggerated the losses from the Library when he says that
most of the MSS. were lost. As far as we can judge in the absence
of a catalogue earlier than the Restoration, the best MSS. would
seem to be still in the collection. It still contains, happily, the
most beautiful book in the world, to be presently described more
particularly.
In 1671 the Countess of Bath, whose husband, Henry Bourchier, had
been a Fellow, presented a collection of books purchased for the
express purpose, some of them handsomely bound, and with her arms
on the sides. Dr. Ingram has quoted from the _Life and Errors_ of
John Dunton an interesting notice of the Library in 1704. From
this we learn that there was nothing to distinguish the building
externally; “it is,” says he, “over the scholars’ lodgings, the
length of one of the quadrangles, and contains a great many choice
books of great value, particularly one, the largest I ever saw
for breadth; it was an Herbal, containing the lively portraitures
of all sorts of Trees, Plants, Herbs, and Flowers.” The Library
at that time served as a Museum as well, for he says that he was
shown in the same place “the skin of a notorious Tory which had
been tanned and stuffed with straw.” This interesting relic does
not now exist, which is not surprising, considering the state of
dilapidation in which it was at the time of Dunton’s visit.[115]
Not very long after Dunton’s visit the foundation stone of the
present Library was laid (1712), the House of Commons having
granted considerable sums for the purpose. It was completed in
1732. The print on next page, dated 1753, gives an illustration
of this building as it then appeared. In the interim we obtain an
unsatisfactory glimpse of the state of things in a letter from
Berkeley, then a Fellow, which mentions that the Library “is at
present so old and ruinous and the books so out of order that there
is little attendance given.”
The new building speedily received large accessions of books. In
1726 Dr. William Palliser, Archbishop of Cashel, bequeathed to the
College all such books and editions in his library as the College
did not already possess. This gift amounted to about four thousand
volumes. He made it a condition that these books should always be
kept next to those of Archbishop Ussher.
A still greater benefactor to the Library was Dr. Claudius Gilbert,
who had been Vice-Provost and Professor of Divinity. In forming
his library he had in view the purpose of presenting it to the
College, and applied great knowledge and judgment to the selection
of books. His collection, the fruit of many years of such care,
contained nearly thirteen thousand volumes, many of them early and
rare texts. His bust was placed near the books in 1758.
[Illustration: OLD PRINT OF LIBRARY, 1753.]
Nearly at the same time as Gilbert’s gift, the MS. collection was
largely augmented by the bequest of Dr. John Stearne, Bishop of
Clogher and Vice-Chancellor of the University. This collection
included that of Dr. John Madden (President of the College of
Physicians), a catalogue of which was printed in Dr. Bernard’s
_Catalogus Manuscriptorum Angliæ et Hiberniæ_. Amongst the MSS.
thus acquired was the collection in thirty-two folio volumes of the
Depositions of the Sufferers by the Rising in 1641. These records
had been in the custody of Matthew Barry, Clerk of the Council,
and at his death were purchased by Dr. John Madden, at the sale
of whose books they were purchased by Dr. Stearne. From the same
collection we obtained a considerable number of letters and other
documents relating to military and judicial proceedings in Ireland,
especially from 1647 to 1679.
In 1786 there was added to the Library an extremely valuable
collection of Irish (Celtic) books formerly belonging to the
celebrated Edward Lhuyd,[116] at whose death they were purchased
by Sir John Sebright. At the suggestion of Edmund Burke, Sir John
presented the books to Trinity College in 1786. They include
_Brehon Law Commentaries_, the _Book of Leinster_, and other
important volumes.
A large and valuable acquisition was made in 1802, when the Library
of M. Greffier Fagel, Pensionary of Holland, consisting of more
than 20,000 volumes, was purchased by the Board of Erasmus Smith
and presented to the College. The books had been removed to England
for sale in 1794, when the French invaded Holland, and had been
advertised by Mr. Christie for sale by auction March 1, 1802, and
twenty-nine following days.
In 1805 a very choice collection of books, including many
_Editiones Principes_, as well as books remarkable for the beauty
of their printing or their binding, was bequeathed by Henry George
Quin. In this collection are found some splendid specimens of
printing and binding which will be mentioned by-and-by. In more
recent times, also, we have received some valuable and interesting
donations. In 1854, the _Book of Armagh_, a MS. of singular
interest (to be referred to more particularly hereafter), was
purchased for £300 by the Rev. W. Reeves, afterwards Bishop of Down
and Connor. As he could not afford to retain the book himself, and
only desired that it should be in safe custody in our Library, he
parted with it for the same sum to the Archbishop of Armagh, Lord
John George Beresford, who presented it to Trinity College.
In the same year Dr. Charles Wm. Wall, Vice-Provost, purchased,
through Rev. Dr. Gibbings, several volumes of the original Records
of the Inquisition at Rome, which had been removed to Paris
by Napoleon I. Extracts from these have been published by Dr.
Gibbings.
[Illustration: INTERIOR OF LIBRARY, 1858.]
Amongst more recent benefactors to the Library the Rev. Aiken
Irvine and Dr. Neilson Hancock deserve to be noticed, the former of
whom bequeathed about 1,000 volumes, and the latter about 250, in
1881 and 1885 respectively. Space forbids the enumeration of less
important donations.
The College authorities, meanwhile, were liberal in granting money
for the purchase of books. Between November, 1805, and March, 1806,
we find them giving fifty guineas for the _Complutensian Polyglot_,
sixty-two for Prynne’s _Records_, and twenty-two and a-half for
the first folio Shakespeare. Again, in the first six months of
1813 we find £126 spent on purchases at auctions, including some
fifteenth-century books, and an Icelandic Bible which cost £14
15s. 9d. In addition to these purchases, the booksellers’ bills
paid amounted to £230. Coming to a later period, we find for the
ten years commencing with 1846 the average annual expenditure on
purchases and binding was £668. After 1856, however, it was found
necessary to contract the expenditure. The fixed sum now set apart
annually for these purposes is £400. Extra grants are, however,
made occasionally for special purchases. As the expense of the
personal staff has considerably increased, the whole expenditure
on the Library is larger than in 1856, and now amounts to about
£2,000. The expense of administration may appear out of proportion
to the amount available for the purchase of books. This is
accounted for by the fact that English publications are received
without cost.
The chief source of the growth of the Library in the present
century has been the privilege granted by Act of Parliament in
1801--viz., the right to a copy of every book (including every
“sheet of letterpress”) published in the United Kingdom. This
privilege this Library shares with the British Museum, the
Bodleian, that of Cambridge University, and the Advocates’ Library,
Edinburgh.[117] To the British Museum publishers are obliged to
send their publications unasked; the other Libraries forfeit their
right to any book not claimed by them within twelve months of
publication. Accordingly, they jointly employ an agent in London
for the purpose of claiming and forwarding books. The principal
firms, however, send their publications as a matter of course,
without waiting to be asked.
This obligation cannot be thought to be a grievance to authors
and publishers, when we reflect to what an extent authors, and
therefore publishers, are dependent on the resources of these
Libraries. What work of research could be produced without the aid
they give? We benefit by the generosity of our forefathers; we are
only asked to hand on the torch and help to do for posterity what
antiquity has done for us. A money grant, however satisfactory to
the Libraries, would not accomplish the same public end, namely,
the preservation of the literature of the time, independently
of the particular tastes or predilections of the successive
librarians. Even in the case of very expensive works, of which only
a small number of copies is issued, publishers take the obligation
into account, and the result is a relatively slight increase of
price not felt by the purchasers of such works.
The number of printed books in the Library in 1792 was about
46,000. In 1844 it had risen to 96,000, a large part of the
increase being due to the acquisition of the Fagel Library. When
the books were last counted (August, 1891), the printed books
numbered 222,648, the MSS. 1,938, giving a total of 224,586.
It should be remembered that we count volumes, not separate
publications, hence a volume containing say thirty pamphlets counts
only as one book. Many of the older volumes contain two or more
books of considerable size bound in one.
* * * * *
This may suffice for the history of the Library: I now proceed to
speak of its contents. If precedence is given to antiquity, the
first objects to claim our attention are the Egyptian papyri. These
were presented by Lord Kingsborough about 1838, and a catalogue
of them was published by Dr. Edward Hincks. One of these is very
finely embellished with pictures representing the history of a
departed soul; several resemble the corresponding pictures in the
papyrus of Ani, of which a fac-simile was recently published by the
British Museum. Some of the pictures wanting in this (our) papyrus
are supplied in others of the collection, such as the weighing
of the soul, the ploughing, sowing, and reaping in the fields of
Elysium.
It is, chronologically, a great step from these Egyptian MSS. to
the oldest of our Greek and Latin MSS. Of Greek Biblical MSS. we
have indeed few, but two of these are of considerable importance.
One is the celebrated palimpsest codex of St. Matthew’s Gospel,
known amongst Biblical critics as Z. The original text of this,
in a beautiful large uncial character, was written not later than
the sixth century. But at a later date (about the 13th century)
this ancient writing was partially erased, and extracts from
some of the Greek Fathers written over it. The old writing was
detected by Dr. John Barrett, formerly Librarian, who published
the text in what was called “engraved fac-simile,” which gives
a very correct idea of the original writing, although the form
of each individual letter may not always be exactly represented.
Dr. Barrett added a learned dissertation on both the more ancient
and the later contents of the MS. Dr. Tregelles, with the help of
chemical applications, was enabled to read some letters which had
escaped Dr. Barrett, and he published an account of his discoveries
in a quarto tract. He also entered his new readings in a copy of
Barrett’s work. Strange to say, these two records of Tregelles
differed considerably, and accordingly, when the present writer
undertook to re-edit Barrett’s text with Tregelles’ additions, he
found it necessary to examine the MS. throughout. In so doing,
he was able to read several hundred letters and marks (such as
marks of quotation, numbers of sections and canons, etc.) which
had escaped both Barrett and Tregelles, besides correcting a few
errors. The additions and corrections were made on Barrett’s
plates, and the new edition was published in 1880.[118]
There is also a palimpsest fragment of Isaiah, apparently of
somewhat earlier date, of which a lithographed fac-simile was
included in the volume just mentioned. This fac-simile enabled Dr.
Ceriani, of Milan, to identify the recension to which a certain
group of MSS. of the Septuagint belongs.[119]
Of the Gospels, there is a copy (63) in a cursive hand of the
tenth century with scholia. Under a portrait of St. Matthew is
traceable a palimpsest fragment of a Greek Evangelistarium. There
was anciently another copy of the Gospels (64), which, however,
was reported missing in 1742. Most probably it had been lent to
Bulkeley (a Fellow), who in fact collated it for Mill. It is now in
the library of the Marquis of Bute.
Another important though not very ancient MS. of the New Testament
is the celebrated _Codex Montfortianus_, historically notable as
being pretty certainly the actual MS. on whose authority the verse
I John v. 7 was admitted into Erasmus’ third edition, and thence
into the received text. It is not older than the fifteenth century.
A collation of the text of the Epistles is given by Barrett in
his volume, _Codex Rescriptus S. Matthæi_. Dr. Orlando Dobbin in
1854 devoted a volume to the MS., giving a complete collation of
the Gospels and Acts. According to his researches, the text of the
Epistles is copied from a MS. in Lincoln College, Oxford, the verse
I John v. 7 being interpolated by the copyist.
This manuscript has the distinction that we know the names of
nearly every person through whose hands it passed. On folio 56 is
the note, “_Sum Thomae Clementis, olim fratris Froyhe_,” and on a
leaf at the end is “Mayster Wyllams, of _Corpus Christi_....” After
Clement it came into the possession of William Chark, from him to
Dr. Thomas Montfort, and then to Ussher. Professor Rendel Harris,
in his book on “The Origin of the Leicester Codex,” has discussed
the history of the Montfort Codex. He makes the suggestion that
Froyhe is an error for Roye, the accidental repetition of a letter
changing “_fratris_ Roye” into “_fratris_ Froye” or “Froyhe.” There
is proof that the MS. was in Franciscan hands (the names Ἰησους,
Μαρία, ϕρἀγκωκος, are scribbled in it more than once). Barrett,
for example, shows that Williams was a Franciscan, and _frater_
Froyhe, or Roye, was probably of the same order. Now there was a
very remarkable member of the Franciscan order, named William Roye,
educated at Cambridge, who, however, in 1524, forsook the order,
and joined Tyndale at Hamburg. It is not impossible that the codex
in question was actually written by him. These, with a fragment
(14th century) of the Epistle to the Romans, and a small Psalter
dated 1533, exhaust our Greek Biblical manuscripts.
Of Latin Biblical manuscripts we have a considerable number,
including several remarkable either for their text or their
artistic execution. The most important for its text is that classed
A. 4, 15, and called _Codex Usserianus_; a manuscript of the
Gospels written probably in the sixth century, and exhibiting an
old Latin text of the Hiberno-British Recension. It is defective at
the beginning and the end; every leaf also is mutilated, so that no
line remains complete. With the exception of a rude cross at the
end of St. Luke’s Gospel, there is no attempt at ornament. Here and
there are interlinear glosses scratched as with a needle point--as,
for example, in reference to the paralytic who was “borne of four,”
the four are interpreted as the four evangelists. It is remarkable
that the _pericopa de adultera_ is given in a text agreeing with
the Vulgate. From this we may conclude--first, that the passage was
not in the archetype; secondly, that the scribe had a copy of the
Vulgate at hand; and thirdly, that it was from choice, not from
necessity, that he copied the old Latin. The full text of this
manuscript was published in _Evangelia Ante-hieronymiana_. Its
history is unknown.
Another MS., called _The Garland of Howth_, exhibits in St.
Matthew’s Gospel a similar text, but elsewhere the Vulgate, or, in
some parts, a mixed text. It is probably not earlier than the ninth
century, or perhaps the tenth. Pictures of two of the evangelists
remain--the others are lost. The MS. is coarsely written, and
on very coarse parchment. The omissions in it, chiefly from
homœoteleuton, are frequent and instructive. Some of the scribe’s
blunders are curious. Thus, Matthew xxii. 42, “quid vobis videtur
de operibus fidelis,” for “de χρο cuius filius;” Mark ii. 3, “qui
iiii rotis portabatur;” xi. 12, “a bethania cum x essurivit ii;”
xiv. 50, “discipuli omnes relinquentes eum cruci[fi]xerunt.” In
Matthew xxvii. 5, an Irish gloss has got into the text--“proiectis
arcadgabuth c.,” for “argenteis.” In Luke xxiii. 12 another gloss
appears in the text--“opus malum malos in unum coniungunt.”
Remarkable both for text and ornament is the _Book of Durrow_ (so
called from Durrow, in King’s County, where St. Columba founded a
monastery), a MS. of the Gospels (with the prologues, &c.), written
perhaps in the seventh century. The text is a tolerably pure
Vulgate. The colophon contains a prayer that whoever shall hold
the book in his hand may remember the writer, Columba, who wrote
this Gospel in the space of twelve days. There were many Columbas
besides the Saint, and it is pretty certain that the present book
was not written by Saint Columba. It is morally certain also that
it was not written in twelve days. But there is good reason to
believe that the scribe has merely copied the colophon from the
book he was transcribing,[120] and if so, the archetype may have
been written by Saint Columba, who has the reputation of being a
scribe.
Except at the beginning of each Gospel, the only attempt at
ornament is a series of red dots round the initial letters; but
the letters of the first words of each Gospel are elaborately
embellished in the characteristic Celtic style. Prefixed also to
each Gospel is a page covered with interlaced ornament of great
beauty, as well as another page with the symbol of the Evangelist.
These pages have been represented in fac-simile (admirably as
regards the tracing, but not with accurate reproduction of the
colours) in Prof. Westwood’s _Fac-similes of Irish and Anglo-Saxon
Manuscripts_. The volume was formerly enclosed in a silver cover,
which has long since disappeared; but a note in the book (written
in 1677) gives the inscription, which stated that the cover was
made by Flann, son of Mailsechnal, King of Ireland (who died in the
year 916).[121]
This MS. was presented to the Library by Henry Jones, Bishop of
Meath, Vice-Chancellor (1646 to 1660), the same whose gift of
stairs, etc., to the Library in 1651 is commemorated on a brass
plate just inside the door.
Conall MacGeoghegan relates of Saint Columba, “hee wrote 300 bookes
with his one [own] hand, they were all new testaments, left a book
to each of his churches in the kingdome w^{ch} Bookes sunck to
the bottom of the Deepest waters, they would not lose one letter
signe or character of them, w^{ch} I have seen partly my selfe of
that book of them w^{ch} is at Dorow, in the K^s County, for I
did see the Ignorant man that hath the same in his custody, when
sickness came upon cattle, for their Remedi putt water on the
booke and suffered it to rest there a while and saw alsoe cattle
returne thereby to their former or pristinate and the book to
receave noe loss.”[122] In earlier times, indeed, even in England,
the scrapings of these Celtic manuscripts were believed to have
medicinal virtues.
The _Book of Durrow_ is far surpassed in beauty by the _Book of
Kells_, so called from Kells in Co. Meath, in which monastery it
had been preserved and doubtless written. This is also a MS. of
the Gospels containing a mixed text, _i.e._, the Vulgate modified
by additions, etc., from the old Latin. No words can convey an
adequate idea of the beauty of this MS. This does not consist,
as in some Oriental MSS., in a profusion of gilding--there is no
gold whatever--nor in the addition of paintings independent of
the text, but in the lavish variety of artistic adornment applied
to the letters of the text, which justifies Professor Westwood in
calling it “the most beautiful book in the world.” The ornament
consists largely of ever-varying interlacing of serpents and of
simple bands, with countless spirals alternately expanding and
contracting in the peculiar “trumpet-shaped pattern.” The initial
of every sentence throughout the Gospels is an artistic product,
some of them exquisite, and no two precisely the same. In addition
to this decoration, which adorns every page, there are many pages
(about thirty) entirely full of ornament, showing the utmost skill
and accuracy in almost microscopic detail. In fact, the detail is
so minute that it often requires a lens to trace it; yet these
minute lines are as firm as if drawn by a machine, and as free as
if they were the growth of nature. The exquisite harmony of the
colouring is as admirable as the elegance of the tracery. Little
wonder that it was said to have been written at the dictation
of an angel. “If you look closely,” says Giraldus Cambrensis,
“and penetrate to the secrets of the art, you will discover such
delicate and subtile lines, so closely wrought, so twisted and
interwoven, and adorned with colours still so fresh, that you will
acknowledge that all this is the work rather of angelic than of
human skill. The more frequently and carefully I examine it, I am
always amazed with new beauties, and always discover things more
and more admirable.”[123] Some pages originally left blank contain
charters in the Irish language, conveying grants of lands to the
Abbey of Kells, the Bishop of Meath, the Monastery of Ardbraccan,
by Melaghlyn, King of Meath, and other monarchs in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries.
[Illustration: A PAGE FROM THE BOOK OF KELLS.]
There are fine examples of the same school of Art in English
Libraries, especially the _Book of Lindisfarne_, in the British
Museum; the _Book of St. Chad_, in Lichfield, the writing in
which is extremely like that in the _Book of Kells_; the _Gospels
of MacRegol_, in the Bodleian; and the _Gospels of MacDurnan_,
in Lambeth. Of these Irish and Hiberno-Saxon works Dr. Wangen
says:--“The ornamental pages, borders, and initial letters exhibit
such a rich variety of beautiful and peculiar designs, so admirable
a taste in the arrangement of the colours, and such an uncommon
perfection of finish, that one feels absolutely struck with
amazement.” None of these, however, equals the _Book of Kells_ in
the number, the fulness, or the perfection of detail of the great
pictorial pages, while the prodigality with which ornament is
bestowed on every page and every paragraph is a feature peculiar to
it.
There is nothing in the _Book of Kells_ itself to indicate its
date, the last leaf--which may have contained the name of the
scribe--being lost. The _Book of Lindisfarne_ contains a note (of
the tenth century) naming the scribe and the illuminator, the
former being Eadfrith, Bishop of Lindisfarne (died 721), and the
latter his successor in the See, Aethelwald (died 737 or 740).
MacRiagoil, scribe, and Abbot of Birr (King’s County), died in 820.
The _Gospels of MacDurnan_ appear from the character of the writing
to be coeval with the _Book of Armagh_, which is known to have been
written in 807. From a comparison of the _Book of Kells_ with these
MSS., it may be inferred that it belongs to the eighth century.
The volume was anciently enclosed in a golden cover, and the
_Annals of the Four Masters_ record, under the year 1006, that in
that year it was stolen from the Church of Kells, and was found
after twenty nights and two months with its gold stolen off and
a sod over it. It is in that passage called the great Gospel of
Columbkille--_i.e._, St. Columba. It owes that name, probably, to
its connection with Columba’s Monastery at Kells, where, no doubt,
it was written, and where it remained until the dissolution of the
monasteries. From Richard Plunket, the last Abbot, it passed to one
Gerald Plunket, and from him to Ussher.
A very interesting and important MS. is the _Book of Armagh_,
containing the entire New Testament (in Latin), being the only
complete copy which has come down to us from the ancient Irish
Church. In it the Gospels are followed immediately by St. Paul’s
Epistles, including the fictitious Epistle to the Laodiceans. It
contains also memoirs of St. Patrick, with his Confession, and a
Life of St. Martin of Tours, by Sulpicius Severus. The name of
the scribe was written in several places, but in every instance
has been more or less effectually erased. However, the Bishop
of Limerick (Dr. Charles Graves) succeeded in deciphering it
sufficiently to identify the name as Ferdomnach. But there were
several scribes of that name, and how to decide which was the one
in question? Dr. Graves found another note, only partly legible,
and that with extreme difficulty, which appeared to have contained
the name Ferdomnach, with the words, “dictante herede Patricii
----bach.” “Heres Patricii” was the title of the Archbishop of
Armagh. The only one who satisfied the conditions of time, and
whose name ended in “bach,” was Torbach, who only occupied the
See for one year. In this way the actual year in which the MS.
was written was determined--viz., A.D. 807.[124] Prof. Westwood
thinks the same scribe wrote the Gospels of MacDurnan, now at
Lambeth. There is a note of later date in the volume relating
to certain privileges of the Church of Armagh, and written “in
the presence of Brian, imperator Scotorum”--_i.e._, Brian Boru,
who visited Armagh in 1004 and 1006, and died 1014. The writer
of this note calls himself Calvus Perennis--a Latin rendering of
his name, Maolsuthain.[125] He was Brian’s private confessor. The
book was in high esteem, being regarded as the actual writing of
St. Patrick, and called the _Canon of Patrick_. Oaths taken upon
it were considered peculiarly obligatory, and the violation of
such an oath brought on him the vengeance of the Saint, as well
as extreme civil penalties. The book was entrusted to the care
of a hereditary keeper, whose family derived their name, “Maor”
or “Moyre,” from the office, to which, moreover, an endowment of
land was attached. The book remained in the possession of this
family until the end of the seventeenth century, when, having
been pawned by the keeper, it came by purchase into the hands of
Arthur Brownlow, from whose lineal representative it was bought,
as above related, by Rev. Dr. Reeves.[126] An interesting object
connected with the _Book of Armagh_ is its leather satchel, finely
embossed with figures of animals and interlaced work. It is formed
of a single piece of leather, 36 in. long and 12½ broad, folded
so as to make a flat-sided pouch, 12 in. high, 12¾ broad, and
2¼ deep. Part of it is doubled over to make a flap, in which
are eight brass-bound slits, corresponding to as many brass loops
projecting from the case, in which ran two rods, meeting in the
middle, where they were secured by a lock. In early times, in Irish
monastic libraries, books were kept in such satchels, which were
suspended by straps from hooks in the wall. Thus it is related in
an old legend that “on the night of Longaradh’s death all the book
satchels in Ireland fell down.”
[Illustration: SATCHEL OF THE BOOK OF ARMAGH.]
Few of these ancient satchels have come down to us. When Dr.
Reeves wrote, he knew of only one other, namely, that now in
Dublin, in the Franciscan Monastery, whither it has come from the
Monastery of St. Isidore in Rome. A third, however, much ruder,
is in Corpus Christi College, Oxford, enclosing an Irish Missal
(illustrated in Gilbert’s _Irish Historical MSS._); a fourth is
described and illustrated by Miss Stokes in _Archæologia_, vol.
xliii., No. xiv.; a fifth is at Milan, containing a Syro-hexaplar
codex, and a full-size illustration of it is given in Dr. Ceriani’s
reproduction of that codex. A similar satchel, containing an
Ethiopic book, is in St. John’s College, Oxford. In Abyssinia,
indeed, they are frequent; all the books in the Monastery of
Suriani are so enclosed.[127] A figure of monks with their
satchels, as represented on an ancient sculptured stone, is given
in the _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_, New
Series, vol. iii., 1881.
[Illustration: SHRINE OF BOOK OF DIMMA.]
The _Annals_ record that in the year 937 a cover was made for the
_Canon of Patrick_ by Donnchadh, son of Flann. This was doubtless
a metal case. The satchel was clearly not made for it.
We have seen that the ancient cases of the Books of Kells and
Durrow were lost long since. Two such shrines (“cumdachs”) are in
our Library--one enclosing the _Book of Dimma_, the other the
_Book of Mulling_ or _Moling_. These books are named from their
scribes, who, according to the _Annals_, lived in the seventh
century. Both these are copies of the Gospels; both, however,
contain also a _Missa Infirmorum_ of later date.[128] The case of
the _Book of Dimma_ is of silver, beautifully wrought with Celtic
tracery. It bears an inscription which runs as follows:--“Tatheus
O’Kearbuill beideev meipsum deauravit, dominus domnaldus O Cuanain
converbius ultimo meipsum restauravit, Tomas Ceard dachorig in
mindsa.” Thady O’Carroll Boy was Prince of Ely in the middle of the
twelfth century; Donald O’Cuanain was Bishop of Killaloe from 1230
to 1260.
The ends of the case are obviously more ancient, apparently
much more ancient, than the sides. It will be observed that the
inscription says nothing about the original maker of the case.
This book, long kept in the monastery at Roscrea, disappeared at
the dissolution of the monasteries, and is said to have been found
again in 1789 by boys hunting rabbits in Devil’s Bit Mountains in
Tipperary. The boys tore off part of the silver plate, and picked
out some of the lapis lazuli.[129] The MS. was purchased from Sir
W. Betham by the College for £200.
The case or shrine of the _Book of Mulling_ appears to have been
originally plain, except for some small pieces of crystal and lapis
lazuli inserted on one side. In 1402, however, a very large crystal
set in fine niello work was inserted in the same side. In 1891,
thinking I saw trace of a letter under this crystal, I raised it,
and thereby revealed a brass plate hitherto concealed by dust, and
bearing the inscription: “++Artturus | ver domin | us & lageniae
| rinsdabe | tilia & baroni | anno & dni | millio | quadrin |
gentesi | mo sedo |++.” This Arthur was Arthur or Art MacMurrough
Kavanagh, who opposed Richard II. This inscription, no doubt, has
reference to the insertion of the crystal and the niello work, not
to the original construction of the case. This MS. also contains
a _Missa Infirmorum_ (published by Bishop Forbes with that in the
_Book of Dimma_).
Another beautiful Latin MS. of Irish origin is the _Psalter of
Ricemarch_, so called because it was formerly in the possession
of that prelate (Bishop of St. David’s, d. 1099), who has written
in it some Latin verses. It is perhaps not much older than his
time. The book was the property of Bishop Bedell, whose autograph
it bears, and was lent by him to Archbishop Ussher, and to this
circumstance it owes its preservation, Bedell’s library having been
destroyed in the troubles of the time.
The last of these Latin Biblical MSS. which I shall mention is not
Irish, but is somewhat of a curiosity. It is a single leaf of the
_Codex Palatinus_, a fifth-century MS. of the old Latin version of
the Gospels written in silver letters on purple vellum. The rest
of the MS. (so far as it has been preserved) is in the Imperial
Library at Vienna, which acquired it at some unknown period between
1800 and 1829. Our leaf was purchased by Dr. Todd in 1843. It is
not improbable that the MS. was abstracted from some monastic
library during the Napoleonic wars, and that this leaf, becoming
separated from the rest, came into the hands of an Irish soldier.
This dispersion of a MS. is less unusual than might be supposed.
The _Book of Leinster_, to be presently mentioned, furnishes a
notable example.[130] I recently received from a correspondent two
leaves of a Syriac MS., which, by the help of Wright’s catalogue,
Dr. Gwynn identified as two of the missing leaves of a MS. in the
British Museum, the MS. having been imperfect when purchased for
that Library.
The _Book of Hymns_ (11th century) deserves mention both for the
beauty of its initial letters and for the interest of its contents.
Some of the hymns are Latin, some Gælic; the greater part of both
has been published by the Irish Archæological Society, with learned
notes by Dr. Todd, and with reproductions of the initial letters.
The remainder of the Gælic hymns has been published by Dr. Whitley
Stokes in his _Goidilica_.
I may appropriately mention here a remarkable Pontifical formerly
belonging to the Church of Canterbury, and, as Bishop Reeves
remarked to me, probably “contrectatus manibus S. Thomae de
Becket.” In this the sentence of ordination of priests is in the
old form, and in the margin is added, in a much later hand, the new
form as adopted by the Church of Rome before the Reformation, and
retained in our Ordinal.[131]
In Celtic literature we are tolerably rich. Part of our collection
came to us, as already mentioned, by gift from Sir John Sebright,
who had purchased the books at Edward Lhuyd’s sale. Amongst
these is the _Book of Leinster_, a large folio of about the
twelfth century, of very varied contents--historical, romantic,
genealogical, and hagiological. The entire text has been published
in lithographed fac-simile at the joint expense of Trinity College
and the Royal Irish Academy, with a preface by Professor R.
Atkinson. When this MS. was presented to our Library, eleven leaves
were missing. These were found, however, and identified by Dr.
Todd, in the Monastery of St. Isidore in Rome, whither they had
gone from the Irish College in Louvain. They are now deposited in
the Franciscan Monastery in Dublin.
The history of the _Book of Lecain_ or _Leacan_, another important
Irish MS., forms a curious counterpart to that of the _Book of
Leinster_. The former was included in Ussher’s collection, and
was in our Library in 1688 when the catalogue was compiled. It
is there recorded, however, that nine leaves were wanting. It is
stated by Nicolson (_Irish Historical Library_, p. 39), on the
authority of Dr. Raymond, that the book was lodged in Paris by Sir
John Fitzgerald in the time of James II. If so, this must have been
very soon after the catalogue was compiled. In 1787, through the
Abbé Kearney of Paris, it was sent to the Royal Irish Academy, then
recently founded, and in their Library it is now preserved. The
nine missing folios were found by O’Curry in one of the Sebright
volumes (H. 2, 17). Although the original _Book of Lecain_ has thus
passed from us, we possess a beautiful copy (on vellum) written
by Eugene O’Curry in the old Irish hand. It is worth noting that
the professional scribe still exists in Ireland, and writes a hand
undistinguishable from that of his predecessors many centuries ago.
In connection with the history of these two volumes, it is not
inappropriate to mention that of another important volume, the
_Book of Ballymote_. This was formerly in Trinity College Library,
but was lent in 1720 to Dr. Raymond, and for a time disappeared.
In 1769 it turned up at Drogheda, and being purchased by Chevalier
O’Gorman, was by him presented to the Royal Irish Academy in 1785.
We possess a paper copy of a portion of it, including one folio
which is now missing from the original volume.
Here is preserved the MS. already mentioned from which Jebb
published Roger Bacon’s _Opus Majus_, also the two MSS. from which
Howard published the _Chronicle of Florence of Worcester_; the
original MS., as prepared for press, of Spottiswoode’s _History
of the Church of Scotland_; the original draft of Berkeley’s
_Principles of Human Knowledge_; also the originals of Sir Thomas
Roe’s _Correspondence_ (Ambassador to the Ottoman Porte, 1621-8,
published London, 1740).
Of MSS. bearing on Irish history we have a fair collection.
First may be mentioned a volume of _Letters of Queen Elisabeth
on Public Affairs in Ireland, 1565 to 1570_, each letter having
her sign-manual. There is also a volume of _Correspondence of
Sir Arthur Chichester, Lord Deputy, with the English Government,
1612-1614_; the thirty-two volumes already mentioned of the
_Depositions relative to the Rising of 1641_; thirteen volumes of
the _Correspondence of Geo. Clarke, Secretary of War, 1690-1694_;
as many of _Archbishop King’s Correspondence, 1696-1729_; _Irish
Treasury Accounts, 1714-1719_; and twelve volumes of Major Sirr’s
papers, letters, etc., chiefly connected with the Rebellion in
1798. We have also Dr. R. R. Madden’s large collection of papers
relating to the United Irishmen.
There are several important volumes of Waldensian literature,
which have been catalogued and described by Todd in his _Books of
the Vaudois_. With Wyclif literature also we are well supplied,
and we have one of the two known copies of the first complete
_English Prose Psalter_, recently published by Dr. Karl Bülbring
for the Early English Text Society. We have two MSS. of Piers
Plowman, five of Rolle’s _Pricke of Conscience_, and several hymns
by Rolle (published by Todd in the _British Magazine_, vol. ix.).
Dr. Ingram, a few years ago, identified the earliest English
translation of the _De Imitatione_, disguised under the title the
book occasionally bore--_Musica Ecclesiastica_.
Nor must I omit to mention the _Life of St. Alban_ in
Norman-French, probably in the handwriting of Matthew Paris, the
text of which has been published, with glossary, etc., by Professor
Atkinson. The original MS. is adorned with pictures on nearly every
page.
Illustrative of French history we possess statistical accounts of
the French provinces and cities of about the year 1698, filling
thirty-two volumes; also a collection, in twenty-five volumes, of
_Memoirs_ (some called “Secret”) _of the Foreign and the Financial
Affairs of France in the Reign of Louis XV_. These formed part of
the Fagel Library. The same library contains a large collection of
maps, printed and MS., some of great rarity. Copies of two or three
of these have lately been made for the Colonial Office, as of value
with respect to a question of the boundary of British Guiana.
Our Oriental manuscripts include a magnificent _Koran_ from the
Library of Tippoo, presented by the East India Company; also a
very fine copy of the _Shâh Nâmeh_ from the same library, likewise
presented by the Company; some beautiful books from the Royal
Library at Shiraz, presented, with other Oriental MSS., by W.
Digges Latouche; and many fine Persian MSS., purchased from Sir
W. Ouseley. An interesting and important Syriac MS. has been
lately identified by Prof. Gwynn. It contains, besides a treatise
of Ephraim Syrus, those parts of the New Testament which are not
found in the _Peshitto_ or Syriac Vulgate; and Dr. Gwynn has
demonstrated that it is the actual MS. referred to by De Dieu and
Walton as belonging to Ussher, and usually described erroneously
as containing the whole New Testament. This is the MS. from
which De Dieu, and subsequently Walton, printed the _Pericopa de
Adultera_.[132]
To come to printed books. We have but one example of a block
book--the _Ars Moriendi_--and that imperfect. So far as it goes,
it agrees with the British Museum copy published by Mr. Rylands.
We have a copy of the first German Bible [1466]; a single leaf (on
vellum) of the famous Mazarin Bible; and a copy of the Latin Bible
printed at Cologne by Nic. Goetz de Schletzstadt [1474].
The Quin collection includes the first edition of Petrarch:
_Sonetti e Trionfi_ (1470); the first of the _Divina Commedia_
(1472), and the first of Boccaccio’s _Theseide_ (1475), very
rare; also a splendid copy, on vellum, of the second edition of
_Virgil_ (Venice: Vindelin de Spira, 1470); also, _Ystoria de re
Karlo Imperatore_ (1473), exceedingly rare; the only known vellum
_Elsevir_ (Heinsius: _De Contemptu Mortis_, 1621); _Dita Mundi_,
by Fazio degl’ Uberti; and the _Adventures of Tewerdanck_, on
vellum (Nuremberg, 1517), a magnificent specimen of printing. In
the Fagel Library is an extremely fine Latin Plutarch, also on
vellum (Jenson, 1478). We have only one Caxton: _Dictes and Sayings
of the Philosophers_ (1477); unless we reckon a single leaf (an
_Indulgence_), which Mr. Bradshaw considered to be from Caxton’s
press.
Amongst rare books may be enumerated--a Sarum _Horae_ (Paris:
Poitevin, about 1498, unique); a Sarum _Breviary_ (Paris: Levet.
1494, unique), which seems to have been in early times mistaken for
a manuscript, and is consequently kept and catalogued among the
MSS. We have a copy of Werner Rolevinck’s _Fasciculus Temporum_ in
Dutch, printed at Utrecht by Veldener, 1480--one of the earliest
books with woodcuts in the text (coloured).
A book of some interest exhibited in the glass case is Theseus
Ambrosius: _Introductio in Chaldaicam Linguam_ (1539). It is of
interest as being the first book in which Syriac types were used,
and next as containing a specimen of spirit-writing dating from
the sixteenth century. It seems that a question having arisen
about some property of a deceased lady which was supposed to be
concealed, it was resolved to evoke a demon to answer the question.
A sheet of paper and a pen were placed on the table, and the proper
incantation being gone through, the pen rose up, without anyone
seeing the hand that held it, and wrote the characters of which
Ambrosius gives a fac-simile, and which, unfortunately, no one has
been able to decipher. I am informed that in the copy of this book
in the Bodleian Library this particular leaf is pasted down, the
“devil’s autograph,” no doubt, being deemed uncanny.
But to enumerate our rare books, or even our fifteenth-century
books, would be tedious, if it were possible. I must not,
however, omit to refer to some fine specimens of binding, most
of which are in the Quin collection. We have six of Grolier’s
books[133]--namely, Erasmus: _Pacis Querella_; Palladius:
_Coryciana_; Greek Psalter (Aldus); _Il Nuovo Cortegiano_; _Cynthio
degli Fabritii_; _Della Origine delli Volgari Proverbi_; and
(perhaps the finest) Guilelmus Tyrius: _Belli Sacri Historia_
(folio). Of Maioli we have--Ori Apollinis _de Sacris Notis
et Sculpturis_, Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius; one by
Monnier--_Spaccio de la Bestia Trionfante_; and last, but not
least, a copy of _Quintus Calaber_, which belonged to Henry II. of
France and Diane de Poitiers.
There are in the Library a few interesting objects other than books
which deserve notice. The satchel of the _Book of Armagh_, and the
shrines of the _Books of Dimma and Mulling_, have been already
noticed. A very remarkable object is a Mosque Staff, presented by
Dr. Jolliffe Tufnell, who professionally attended Omar Pasha’s army
in 1854. Such a staff is used where there are no mosques, and being
set up on a temporary structure, as a heap of stones, it represents
a mosque. On each of the four sides is carved a sentence from the
Koran. “I am in the house of the Lord.” “Evil and good are sent by
God; be content with your lot.” “Every day we offer our prayers to
Thee.” “Forgive us all our sins.” “With heart and soul we believe
in Thee.”
An ancient Irish harp attracts the attention of visitors from
the repute attaching to it, of being the harp of Brian Boroimhe
(pron. Boru, d. 1014). It is elegantly carved, and in form much
resembles the harp of Queen Mary, an engraving of which is
exhibited beside it. It had thirty strings. The following is the
tradition respecting this harp, as quoted in the _Ulster Journal
of Archæology_, vol. vii., p. 99, from a MS. by Ralph Ouseley,
1783.[134] “It had been taken to Rome, and remained there until
Innocent XI. sent it as a token of good will to Charles II.,
who deposited it in the Tower. Soon afterwards, the Earl of
Clanricarde, seeing it, assured the King that he knew an Irish
nobleman (meaning O’Brien, Earl of Thomond) who would probably
give a limb of his estate for this relic of his great ancestor;
on which his Majesty made him a present of it. Lord Clanricarde
brought the instrument to Ireland; but Lord Thomond, being abroad,
never became possessed of it. Some years after, a Lady Henley
purchased it by barter, in exchange for twenty rams and as many
ewes of English breed, in order to give it to her son-in-law,
Henry M‘Mahon, Esq., of Clunagh, County Clare; from whom it passed
through other hands to an accomplished gentleman, the Right Hon.
William Conyngham,” who presented it to Trinity College. Conyngham
seems to have been given the harp by Chevalier O’Gorman, who gave
a history of it (published in Vallancey’s _Collectanea_, vol.
iv. 7) differing from that just quoted. According to O’Gorman’s
story, Brian’s son Donogh, on being deposed, took the harp (with
the crown and regalia) to Rome, and gave them to the Pope.[135]
He adds the fiction that it was on the ground of possessing these
regalia that Pope Adrian claimed the right to dispose of the
lordship of Ireland. The story goes on to say that a later Pope
gave the harp to Henry VIII., who presented it to the first Earl
of Clanricarde.[136] The celebrated antiquary, Dr. George Petrie,
considered that our harp dated from about A.D. 1400, and was a
portable instrument used for ecclesiastical purposes. One strong
objection to the earlier date he based on the fact that it bore a
silver badge with the arms of O’Neill, armorial bearings not having
been in use much earlier than the date he assigned. This badge
disappeared for some time, and fortunately came into the possession
of a distinguished antiquary, Mr. Robert Day, of Cork, affixed to
a piece of armour found in some recent excavations in the Phœnix
Park. As soon as Mr. Day learned the history of the badge, he
promptly presented it to the Library. In its absence it was easy to
observe that the carving was continuous, so that the badge must
have been a later addition. Petrie’s first argument, therefore,
fell to the ground. It is true, however, that the figures of two
wolf-dogs are carved on the harp itself. His second objection was
founded on the occurrence of the letters IHC, which may be traced
in a peculiar angular form near the top of the front arm. But this
also, in the opinion of good judges, is later than the rest of the
carving. The harp, therefore, may possibly be older than Petrie’s
date. The sound-board is of oak (as ascertained by microscopical
examination), but very much decayed.
The same case which contains the harp contains also a few gold and
silver ornaments of elegant workmanship, and a large spear brooch,
which, however, has none of the characteristic Irish work, and is
in fact very similar to a Scandinavian brooch figured in M. Du
Chaillu’s _Viking Age_, vol. ii., p. 329, but has more ornament.
It is 13¾ in. long, 5½ wide across the circle, and weighs 18
oz. It is figured in Vallancey’s _Collectanea_, vol. i., where it
is stated that it had recently (1786) been found near Cashel.
In the Librarian’s room is the largest of the gold ornaments yet
found in Ireland. It is in form like the small fibulae, but weighs
33 oz. 4 dwt. It is adorned with groups of concentric circles
and a series of acute angles, with no trace of the spirals so
characteristic of Celtic art in Christian times. From this it is
inferred that it is of older date. This ornament was found at
Clones in 1820, and purchased by the College. The Charter horn of
the Kavanaghs, after being in the Library for a century, was a few
years ago surrendered to the family. A cast of it is exhibited.
A small bas-relief which hangs on one of the pillars calls for
some notice. It represents Demosthenes at the altar of Calaureia,
where he took the fatal poison. The whole posture, but especially
the head, expresses the utmost dejection. The position of the
right hand also should be observed; instead of clasping the knee,
it hangs idly on one side. There is an engraving of this work in
Winckelmann’s _History of Art_, but the engraver, by raising the
chin, has quite lost the aspect of dejection, and rather gives
the impression that the orator is meditating a speech. It is also
engraved in Allen’s _Demosthenes_ and in Stock’s _Demosthenes_.
This relief belonged to Dr. Richard Mead, and is said to have been
found in the ruins of Hadrian’s Villa. After Mead’s sale in 1755,
where it was purchased by a London dealer, it disappeared from
view until about 1885, when I had the good fortune to identify it
in the centre ornament of a mantelpiece in the room which formerly
contained the Museum (now the Front Hall), and which was built
in 1759. Certain errors in the arrangement of the drapery have
suggested doubts as to its genuineness.[137] On the other hand, in
its favour is the fact that the features resemble those of the bust
found in Herculaneum in 1753; but it was known in 1737, before the
discovery of that bust, and at a time when a wholly different type
of face was accepted as that of Demosthenes. Possibly even ancient
artists may have erred sometimes.
Another objection is the misspelling of the name--viz., ΔΗΜΩΣΘΕΝΗΣ.
But would not a modern sculptor, who would presumably be too
ignorant of Greek to substitute Ω for Ο, be less likely to commit
this error than a Roman sculptor of Hadrian’s time, who would
probably know a little Greek?
Just inside the entrance to the building are two Medallion Busts
which were brought from Smyrna in 1707. They are mentioned by
Gudius and Boeckh.[138] They were made the subject of a learned
dissertation by Dr. Kennedy Bailie (_Transactions, Royal Irish
Academy_, vol. xxii.). He concludes that the larger medallion
represents Plautilla, wife of Caracella, deified under the title
ΝΕΑ ἩΡΑ, but afterwards deposed and banished.
Our collection of Coins is not very large. Of Roman coins, silver
and copper, we have a fairly good collection--about 1,300 silver
and a couple of thousand copper. A selection of these is exhibited.
The collection ought to be better, but unfortunately, about a
hundred years ago (viz., in 1788), the room where the coins were
then kept (now the Fagel) was burglariously entered, and the most
valuable coins and medals stolen. Recently, the late Rev. Dr. R.
F. Littledale bequeathed a small collection of English coins and
medals.
An old Minute Book of the Library, chiefly in the handwriting
of Dr. Barrett, contains occasional items of interest. Here we
read of a ship with books for the Library cast away, the books,
however, being recovered, but damaged, some irrecoverably. Again,
we find some books which had been stolen restored through the Roman
Catholic priest to whom the thief had made confession. On another
occasion a parcel of stolen books is thrown into the Provost’s
courtyard. An amusing entry occurs, in which Dr. Barrett states
his intention to ask permission to lock up a certain _Narrative of
a Residence in Ireland_, by Mrs. Anne. Plumptre (1815), stating
that it is too silly and too ill-mannered for a public library.
“Hospitably entertained by the good-natured, blundering Irish, and
introduced (perhaps for the first time in her life) into good
company, she takes care to let [the] world know it by publishing
all the little tea-table talk they had indulged in to amuse her,
and many of whom are probably now blushing at seeing it embodied
in a pompous quarto, illustrated with engravings. Travel in savage
countries, Mrs. Anne, and publish their conversations if you can,
but spare the feelings of those who are accustomed to the rules and
decencies of civilised life.”
An account of the Library would be incomplete if the Catalogue
were left unnoticed. The first printed Catalogue was issued about
1710 in one thin volume, folio. We have now a printed Catalogue
in nine folio volumes, which includes all the printed books in
the Library at the end of the year 1872. The first volume of
this Catalogue (A and B) was prepared under the direction of Dr.
Todd, and issued in 1864. The work was then suspended, and not
resumed until 1872, when a special editor, Mr. H. Dix. Hutton,
was appointed, the time of the Library staff being fully employed
otherwise. The Catalogue was completed Jan. 1, 1887, the expense of
printing and paper alone having been £4,500. Since that time Mr.
Hutton has been engaged in preparing a Supplementary Catalogue, to
contain the subsequent accessions. When this has been completed up
to the present time, it is intended to make it a Desk Catalogue,
in which all new accessions will be inserted on printed slips. The
Catalogue is primarily an author’s catalogue--that is to say, books
are arranged under the names of their authors, where known. But by
the liberal use of cross references and secondary entries, some of
the advantages of a subject catalogue are obtained. In the Desk
Catalogue now in preparation, the method adopted by the editor,
Mr. Hutton, is as follows:--One copy of the printed slip is taken,
and in the upper left-hand corner the proper subject heading is
type-written by him, and this slip is then inserted in alphabetical
order, according to this heading. This saves the expense of
printing a fresh title for the secondary entry.
Of our MSS. the earliest existing catalogue is that of 1688, which
was compiled with great care. This is also the only catalogue at
present accessible to readers at a distance, having been printed
in Bernard’s _Catalogus Manuscriptorum Angliæ et Hiberniæ_. In the
Library itself the catalogue most commonly used is one drawn up by
Dr. John Lyon about 1745, which, however, only extends to Classis
G. A more complete catalogue, extending to Classis M, was prepared
by Dr. Henry J. Monck Mason, about the year 1814, for the Irish
Commissioners of Public Records, with a view to publication. The
terms proposed by Dr. Monck Mason and his specimen of the work were
approved, and when the rough copy (in five volumes) was finished
he was required to hand it over to the Board. Then the question of
remuneration was raised, and it was discovered that no minute had
been entered of the original engagement; and as some of the members
of the Board had been changed, the engagement, in the absence
of a written vote, was not held to be sufficient to outweigh
considerations of public economy.
[Illustration: BOOK RECESSES IN LIBRARY.]
Dr. Monck Mason devoted much conscientious labour and intelligence
to the work. He was assisted in the department of Irish MSS. by
Edward O’Reilly; in that of Oriental MSS. by Edward Hincks, then
sub-librarian; and in the Icelandic MSS. by George Cash. It is much
to be lamented that the work was not published as designed. The
MSS. in the Irish language have been catalogued by Dr. O’Donovan
in one thick folio volume. There exists also a card catalogue,
consisting of about 20,000 cards, prepared under the direction of
Dr. Benjamin Dickson, assistant librarian. He employed, at his
own expense, a person acquainted with the Irish vernacular, but
otherwise not as well qualified as might be wished (the inevitable
result of want of means to pay a qualified scholar).
It is in contemplation to print a summary catalogue much briefer
than Dr. Monck Mason’s, but containing sufficient information about
each volume to indicate to students at a distance what they may
expect to look for in it. A catalogue of this kind need not occupy
more than one volume, and might be sold at such a price as would
make it generally accessible.
It may interest librarians to learn how the accommodation has
been from time to time enlarged. Up to the end of the eighteenth
century, the room in the east wing, now occupied by the Fagel
Library, was set apart as the MSS. Room. In the stalls in the Long
Room, where the short bookcases are at present, there were seats
like settles, the ends of which still remain. From the high cases
projected sloping desks, below which there were no books. The
engraving in Malton’s _Views of Dublin_ represents this state of
things. These seats and desks were removed in 1817. The Reading
Room was the upper room in the west wing, now the Clerks’ Room.
The whole of the ground floor, except in the wings, was an open
ambulatory, divided length-wise by a central wall, the south side
being used by the Fellows. The rooms on the ground floor in both
wings were Lecture Rooms--that at the west for Law, that at the
east end for Divinity. The Law Lecture Room also contained the
Lending Library. There were no bookcases in the gallery.
[Illustration: INNER STAIRCASE IN LIBRARY.]
In 1802 the Fagel Library was placed in the East Room, and the
MSS. were removed to the room above it. The next step was the
erection of the short bookcases in the stalls. In 1844 Dr. Todd
introduced the ingenious device of low bookcases in the windows of
the gallery, revolving on hinges, and with shelves on both sides.
In the central part of the building, where the walls are thicker,
there were two of these--one outside the other--so that, with the
fixed shelves at the back, there were five shelves in depth and
four in height. In the shallower windows these were but three in
depth. In 1860 it had become necessary to reconstruct the roof, and
then bookcases were placed on the gallery over those below, and
reaching to the roof. Most of the revolving cases had then to be
removed.
Meantime, in 1848, the room on the ground floor in the east wing
had been made a Reading Room, and heated by hot-water pipes. A
spiral staircase connected it with the room above. When it became
necessary to have a means of communication with the gallery at
this end, it was proposed either to continue this staircase, or to
construct a similar one at the other end of the room. The objection
to this scheme was a remarkable one: it would give too great vent
for the heated air, and so cause draughts; in other words, it would
help to ventilate the Reading Room--the very thing that was wanted!
When the new Lecture Rooms and Museum were built, the MSS. were
removed to their present place on the ground floor near the
entrance, and some twenty-five years after that, bookcases were
constructed in the upper east room. A few years ago these were in
their turn nearly filled, and it became necessary to enclose the
ground floor of the Library. This work was completed this year
(1892). The western third of this space constitutes the new Reading
Room.
[Illustration: INTERIOR OF LIBRARY, 1860.]
Only graduates (of Dublin, Oxford, or Cambridge) have the right of
admission to the Library; but the privilege has always been freely
granted to persons properly introduced, whether graduates of a
university or not, so that it is, in fact, a public library. In
1856 it was resolved by the Board and Visitors to grant admission
to students who have entered on their third year, that being the
usual period for commencing professional studies; but admission is
always granted at an earlier period to a student whose studies are
such as to make it desirable.
[Illustration: THE LIBRARY, 1891. (SEE PAGE 213.)]
[Illustration: LIBRARY STAIRCASE AND ENTRANCE TO READING ROOM.]
Previously to 1843, readers were allowed to take books from the
shelves themselves, but in that year this privilege was limited to
the Fellows and Professors, except in the Reading Room, where books
of reference and other books in frequent demand are accessible to
all readers. This change caused a considerable diminution in the
number of readers. A similar resolution had been passed in 1817,
but rescinded a few months after, it being thought to be contrary
to the Statutes, which forbade readers to replace a book anywhere
except in its place on the shelves. The Provost (Elrington)
protested against the rescission, alleging, _inter alia_, that free
access to the shelves led to the reading of indecent books, and he
had even known books of magic to be read.
The hours during which the Library was open were formerly eight
to ten, and eleven to one. We read once or twice of permission
being given to readers to remain locked in between ten and eleven.
The hour of closing was afterwards postponed to two o’clock. At
present, the Reading Room is open from ten to six; the Library
itself is closed at three in winter, and four in summer.
[Illustration: ROYAL ARMS NOW PLACED IN LIBRARY.]
FOOTNOTES:
[110] This is the amount stated in the _Book of Benefactors_ (MS.).
Dr. Bernard, in his _Life of Ussher_, makes the sum £1,800.
[111] Brereton’s _Travels_, published by the Chetham Society in
1844.
[112] When the House of Commons was debating whether they should
admit Ussher to the Assembly of Divines Selden said, “They had as
good inquire whether they had best admit Inigo Jones, the King’s
architect, to the company of mouse-trap makers.”--Elrington’s _Life
of Ussher_, p. 231.
[113] MS., of which a copy was given to the Library by Mr. Edward
Evans, 1887.
[114] The Library of Trinity College, Dublin. An address delivered
at the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Library Association, by John
K. Ingram, LL.D., F.T.C.D., President.
[115] A separate room was provided for the Museum in 1777.
[116] In the judgment of the learned Dr. Rudolph Siegfried,
formerly Professor of Sanskrit in this University, the name of
Edward Lhuyd as a comparative philologist deserved to stand “right
after” that of Bopp.
[117] The Bodleian was the first Library to acquire this privilege,
James I. having induced the Company of Stationers to give it a copy
of every work entered at their Hall. In the reign of Anne the Royal
Library acquired the privilege, and when George II., in 1757, gave
his library to the British Museum, he transferred this privilege
with it. The Act of 1801 granted it to eleven libraries, but most
of these have commuted it for an annual grant.
[118] Lithography would have had the appearance of greater
exactness, but to a great extent only the appearance, for some
of the pages are so obscure that the lithographic artist would
have been unable of himself to trace the letters, and would be as
dependent on a scholar for guidance as the engraver was. The errors
of even so practised a decipherer at Tregelles suffice to prove
this.
[119] _Rendiconti del R. Istitecto Lombardo_, ser. ii., vol. xix.,
fasc. 4.
[120] See Hermathena, No. xviii., 1892. The colophon is as
follows:--“Rogo beatitudinem | tuam [=sce] præsbiter | patrici
ut quicumque | hunc libellum manu te | nuerit meminerit colum |
bae scriptoris qui hoc scripsi | himet evangelium per xii dierum
spatium gtia [=dni] [=nri] s.s.” The only doubtful letters are
“hi” before “met.” If I read them rightly, the colophon must be a
copy, the syllable “mi” being omitted. Moreover, the book is copied
from one in which the leaves containing the summaries or “breves
causæ” were somewhat disordered, and the copyist had not sufficient
knowledge to correct the disorder. There are blunders, too, which
could hardly have been committed by Saint Columba.
[121] “Oroit agus bendacht cholumb chille do Flaund mace
mailsechnaill do Righereim la sa ndernada cumddach so.”
[122] MacGeoghegan: _Annals of Ireland_ (MS. T.C.D.), an. 590, p.
52.
[123] _Topographia Hiberniæ_, ii., c. 38.
[124] Graves: _Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy_, vol. iii.,
pp. 316, 356.
[125] The note is as follows (the contractions expanded):--“Sanctus
Patricius iens ad coelum | mandauit totum fructum | laboris sui
tam babtismi tam causarum et elemoisina | rum deferendum esse apos
| tolicae urbi quae scotice | nominatur arddmacha | sic reperi
in beblioticis | scotorum ego scripsi | id est caluus perennis
in con | spectu briani imperato | ris scotorum et quod scripsi |
finivit pro omnibus regibus maceriae” (_i.e._, of Cashel). The
scribe originally wrote “finit” for “finivit;” he then expunged the
“t” by a point under. This is the origin of O’Curry’s ridiculous
“figuivit.”
[126] On the _Book of Armagh_, see Sir W. Betham: _Irish
Antiquarian Researches_; Petrie: _Essay on the Round Towers_;
Bishop Graves, _ubi supra_; and Bishop Reeves, _Proc. R. I. Acad._,
ser. iii., vol. ii., p. 77.
[127] See a drawing in Curzon’s _Monasteries of the Levant_.
[128] Published by Bishop Forbes in his _Liber Ecclesiæ de
Arbuthnott_.
[129] This is the story as told to and by Monck Mason, from whom
Sir W. Betham bought the MS., and who had himself bought it from a
Mr. Harrison of Nenagh. Sir W. Betham not unreasonably questions
the truth of the story.
[130] A remarkable instance is the _Codex Purpureus_ N of the
Gospels, of which four leaves are in the British Museum, two in
Vienna, six in the Vatican, and thirty-three at Patmos.
[131] The MS. is B.3.6. On fol. cxxx. _a_ we read: “Expletis
benedictionibus faciat Episcopus Crucem in manus singulorum de
oleo et chrismate dicens orationem. Consecrare et sanctificare
digneris quaesumus Domine manus istas per istam unctionem et
nostram benedictionem ut quaecunque consecraverint consecrentur, et
quaecunque benedixerint benedicantur et sanctificentur per Christum
Dominum nostrum. Deinde patenam cum oblatis et calicem cum vino
det singulis dicens ad eos lenta voce. Accipite potestatem offerre
sacrificium Deo missamque celebrare tam pro vivis quam et pro
defunctis in nomine Domini. Sequitur ultima benedictio: Benedictio
Domini Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti descendat super vos ut
sitis benedicti in ordinem sacerdotalem, offerentes placabiles
hostias pro peccatis atque offensionibus populi omnipotenti Deo,
cui est honor et gloria in saecula saecularum. Amen. Et osculetur
singulos et omnes qui ordinati sunt, deferant oblationes ad manus
episcopi.” Opposite this in the margin, _secunda manu_, is a series
of different rubrics and prayers, of which the most notable is
“Post benedictionem imponat manum super capita ordinatorum dicendo:
Accipite Spiritum Sanctum, et quorum remiseritis peccata remissa
sunt, et quorum retinueritis retenta sunt.” Then follows, _secunda
manu_, the “Finalis Benedictio.”
[132] On a Syriac MS. belonging to the collection of Archbishop
Ussher, by the Very Rev. John Gwynn, D.D., _Transactions of the
Royal Irish Academy_, vol. xxvii.
[133] None of them mentioned by M. Le Roux de Lincy in his
_Recherches sur Grolier, sa vie, et sa bibliothèque_.
[134] Bibl. Egerton, Brit. Mus., MS. No. 75, p. 371.
[135] Conall MacGeoghegan, in his _Annals of Ireland_ (1627, MS.),
under 1063, makes the same statement as to the crown, but says that
Pope Adrian gave it to Henry II.
[136] On this and other Irish harps see O’Curry: _Manners and
Customs of the Ancient Irish_, vol. iii., p. 266. Petrie’s remarks
are in Bunting’s _Ancient Irish Music_.
[137] See _Classical Review_, May, 1888.
[138] Gudius: _Inscriptiones Antiquæ_, ed. Hessel; Boeckh:
_Corpus_, ii., p. 778, n. 3346. See a paper by Dr.
Todd--_Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy_, vol. ii., p. 49.
[Illustration: FRONT OF TRINITY COLLEGE,
from Brooking’s Map of Dublin,
1728.
]
CHAPTER VIII.
THE EARLY BUILDINGS.
When Adam Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin, had induced Queen
Elizabeth to grant a Charter of Incorporation to a University to
be established in Dublin, he addressed himself to the Mayor and
Corporation of the City with a view to obtaining a suitable site.
And, happily for the success of the scheme which he and the more
academic Luke Challoner so successfully carried out, and for the
future welfare of the new Institution, a site the most suitable
and the most admirable that could have been found in Ireland was
at that moment at the disposal of the Corporation of Dublin--the
old Augustinian Monastery of All Hallows, lying to the eastward,
and just outside the City. As far as we can gather from the
recitals in the lease of the monastic buildings and site made by
the Mayor and Sheriffs in the year 1591 to John Spensfield, the
precincts, besides a church, consisted of “a steeple, a building
with a vault under it, the spytor, otherwise called the hall, with
appurtenances all along to the north cheek of the Bawn Gate.” We
find that there were also within the precincts of the Monastery the
sub-prior’s orchard and the common orchard, and a field called the
Ashe Park, wherein the prior and the monks had their haggard and
cistern, with the western storehouse by the Great Bawn, together
with a vestry cloister, a little garden within the precincts, and a
tower over the gate adjoining Hoggen Green. The buildings, without
the lands, appear to have been let to John Pepard, merchant, for
sixty-one years, at ten shillings a-year, with a clause restraining
him from taking stones, or slates, or timber out of the precincts;
the materials thereon were to be used only for building on the
site. Another lease was made to Edward Pepard, in 1584, of a
small orchard in All Hallows for thirty-one years, at twenty-four
shillings a-year; and in 1583 Edward Pepard had sub-let, for
twenty-one years, to Peter van Hey and Thomas Seele, a garden with
a vault at the north side of All Hallows, at a yearly rent of forty
shillings, with a covenant that they should keep up the garden
wall and the vaults. It would thus appear that at this time the
Pepards had acquired the site of the buildings and a small orchard,
possibly that formerly occupied by the sub-prior, as tenants on a
terminable lease. During the fifty years which elapsed from the
suppression of the Monastery, the buildings must have suffered
very considerable dilapidation. Most likely they had not been
originally erected in a very substantial and durable manner; and
as little care seems to have been taken as to the maintenance of
the church, the hall, and the monastic dwellings, they must have
been for the most part in a ruinous condition. The total value of
the site and precincts is stated in a letter from Queen Elizabeth
to have been £20 a-year. At the close of the Queen’s reign the
City of Dublin did not extend towards the east beyond St. George’s
Lane, now called South Great George’s Street. An open space of
ground stretched from thence to All Hallows, with paths diverging
to different parts of a small stream, beyond which lay the site of
the old Monastery. The whole of the precincts at that time covered
about twenty-eight acres, of which twelve were in meadow, nine in
pasture, and seven in orchard. On the north, towards the river,
there was a boggy strip of ground covered by the water at high
tide, and bounded on the south by the path leading to St. Patrick’s
Well, near the present entrance to Kildare Street, and bounded on
the east by lands formerly belonging to the Abbey of the Blessed
Virgin, but then in the tenure of John Dougan, on the site of the
modern Westland Row.[139]
And such was the influence of the Archbishop, supported by his
Archdeacon, Henry Ussher, and by Luke Chaloner, of Trinity College,
Cambridge, and two Scotch schoolmasters, James Hamilton and James
Fullerton, who were at the time in Dublin, that the Corporation
convened the citizens to a general assembly at the Tholsel, where
they, after due deliberation upon the proposal to grant the site
of the monastery for the intended College, immediately proceeded
to make the grant. A Charter of Incorporation had in the meantime
been obtained from the Queen, on the petition of Henry Ussher. The
letter of Elizabeth to Sir William Fitzwilliam, Lord Deputy, and
to the Irish Council, announcing her consent to this arrangement,
is dated December 21st, 1591; and, on the 3rd of the following
March, Letters Patent passed the Great Seal.[140] The first stone
of the new building was laid on March 13th, 1592. Subscriptions
from the gentry in every part of Ireland were received for the
building, and on January 9th, 1594, the new College was completed.
No remains of this structure exist at the present day; indeed, no
buildings prior to the reign of William III. are now to be found
in Trinity College. The Elizabethan edifice consisted of a small
square court, which was always familiarly called The Quadrangle,
and which was removed early in the latter half of the eighteenth
century. Some parts of the old monastery were no doubt utilised in
the new building. As the visitor approached from Hoggen Green he
crossed an outer enclosed court, which formed an entrance to the
College; he then entered through the great gate, and found himself
in a small square, probably on the site of the southern portion of
the great main square of the College, then surrounded by buildings
constructed of thin red Dutch brick, with probably a good deal of
wooden framework inserted. On the north side lay the old steeple of
the monastery, having the porter’s lodge on the ground floor, and a
chamber over it; and on the second loft was hung the College bell.
Towards the east of the steeple lay the Chapel; on the same side
of the quadrangle was the Hall, paved with tiles, with a gallery,
and a lantern in the roof. The hall was separated from the kitchen
by a wooden partition, and in the same range with them was placed
the Library. This room was over the scholars’ chambers, and had
a gallery, and the lower part of it was fitted with ten pews for
readers. The Regent House seems to have been between the Chapel and
the Hall, and a gallery in the Regent House looked into the Chapel.
This range of buildings extended to the east side of the court,
beyond the site of the present Campanile. On the north of this
range lay the kitchen, buttery chamber, and the storehouse. The
east and west sides of the quadrangle contained students’ chambers,
and on the south side were placed houses for the Fellows. The three
sides composed in all seven buildings for residence--three on the
south side, and two on each of the east and west sides. The upper
story was lightened by dormer windows, with leaden lattices, and in
the centre of the quadrangle stood the celebrated College pump.[141]
THE ELIZABETHAN COLLEGE.
For this interesting section as to the Elizabethan College, the
writer is indebted to the Rev. J. W. Stubbs, D.D., S.F.T.C.D.:--
For a long period it was impossible to form an accurate idea of the
size and arrangements of the buildings of the original College.
The very foundations have long since been obliterated. Speed’s map
gives a rough idea of its site and general shape; and Rocque’s map,
which was constructed in 1751, before the structure was removed,
shows its position with regard to the present Library and some
of the portions of the College which remain. Dunton’s _Life and
Errors_ gives a description of the buildings as they stood one
hundred years after their erection, yet his details are in some
respects misleading.
In the present year, a paper in the handwriting of Sir William
Temple, Provost in 1523, has been found, giving the distribution
of the chambers in the College among the Fellows and students in
that year, and which, with the aid of the preceding authorities
and letters of the period, enables us to form a fairly accurate
conception of the buildings as they existed in the time of James
the First.
[Illustration: FROM ROCQUE’S MAP OF DUBLIN, 1750.]
The College was a quadrangle, the eastern and western sides being
longer than those on the north and south. The approach was through
a tower which lay on the north side, and which was the “steeple”
of the old Monastery, having the porter’s lodge on the ground
floor, and a chamber over it. In the second story was placed the
College bell. The remainder of the north side was occupied by the
Chapel and the Hall; the Chapel lay towards the east, and the Hall
towards the west, of the entrance. There appears to have been an
attic over one of these buildings, which contained four “studies”
for undergraduates. The Regent House seems to have been located
between the Chapel and the Hall, for candidates for degrees passed
through the Hall into the Regent House, and a gallery in the Regent
House looked into the Chapel. The Hall was paved with tiles, had
a lantern in the roof, and had a gallery, probably communicating
with the room over the porter’s lodge. On the south side of the
quadrangle, which lay between the present Library and the centre of
the present Examination Hall, there were four houses; the ground
floors of these houses were occupied by students’ rooms, there
being ten “studies” occupied by fourteen students. The house on
the east of the south side had no other chambers occupied, and the
first and second stories probably contained the library, which we
may learn from the College accounts of the period had a gallery and
a lower story which was fitted up with ten “pews” for readers. The
next house had two students resident on the ground floor, and two
Fellows on the first floor. The third house had three “studies”
on the ground floor, but the first and second stories were not
occupied by students or by Fellows. Possibly it was in this house
that Ussher’s books were afterwards placed. The fourth house had
two “studies” on the ground floor, and a Fellow and a student
occupied the first floor.
On the east side of the quadrangle there were six houses, each
having “studies” for three students on the ground floor. In the
first of these houses the remaining floors were unoccupied. In
the second, three students occupied the attic. Chambers were
there assigned also to one Fellow, one Master of Arts, and to
the Professor of Divinity. In the third house there were three
“studies” on the ground floor, but the remaining floors were
not assigned for chambers. In the fourth house there were three
“studies” on the ground floor--two Fellows and two Masters of Arts
occupied the first floor, and a Master of Arts the attic. The fifth
house had three “studies” on the ground floor--three Fellows and
one student had chambers on the first floor, and five students
resided in the attic story. The sixth house had three “studies” on
the ground floor, and three graduates resided over them.
On the west side there were three houses, with three “studies” on
the ground floor of each. The first house had no occupied chambers
over the ground floor. In the second house one Fellow and two
Masters of Arts had chambers on the first floor; one Master of Arts
and two students resided in the attic. The first floor of the third
house on this side was occupied by two Fellows and by one Master
of Arts, and the attic by two students, apparently brothers. The
remainder of the west side was possibly occupied by the Provost’s
chambers.
There was no approach to the interior of the College from Hoggen
Green, nor did the ground on the west side of the College at that
time belong to it. We find in 1639 a letter from Provost Bedell
to Ussher giving an account of a riot among the students, which
arose from an attempt of one Arthur to make an enclosure on that
side of the College on land which he had leased from the City of
Dublin. A petition was forwarded from the College to the Council
complaining of Arthur’s proceeding to erect a building on that side
of the College, by which a passage would be taken away where there
was in former times a gate or way leading into the site upon which
the College was built, which, although at that time closed, was
intended to be opened again by the College. It ended in the College
acquiring Arthur’s interest in the plot, and so preserving a right
of way.
COLLEGE GREEN.
The ground at present known as College Green was once the site of
a considerable village outside the walls of the City of Dublin,
known as Hog or Hogges.[142] A convent for nuns of the rule of St.
Augustine was founded on les Hogges in 1146 by Dermot MacMurchard,
King of Leinster, and the open space obtained the name of Hoggen
Green.[143] How the nunnery of St. Mary atte Hogge was dissolved,
and the buildings granted to the citizens of Dublin in 1534; how
it was proposed to turn the buildings into a jail or bridewell;
how, in consequence of some dispute with the builder, the property
was handed over to the University, and became a second College or
High School under the name of Trinity Hall; and how at length, in
1667, thanks to the efforts of Dr. Stearne, the President, Trinity
Hall was converted into the College of Physicians of Ireland,
is all very interesting, but it is quite outside the scope of
the present chapter. The modern Trinity Street marks the site of
Trinity Hall, which was only demolished about the year 1700. Hogges
Gate, the eastern gate of the City of Dublin opening upon Hoggen
Green, facing the College, and standing somewhere near the site of
the modern Forster Place, was removed in 1663 as being not only
useless, but ruinous. The equestrian statue of King William III.,
that is now so prominent a feature of College Green, was erected by
the Corporation of Dublin, and unveiled with great pomp on the 1st
of July, 1801. The figure of Henry Grattan was executed by J. H.
Foley, R.A., an Irish artist, and placed in its present position in
January, 1876. The fine bronze statues of Edmund Burke and Oliver
Goldsmith, truly distinguished students of Trinity College, which
are also the work of Foley, stand within the College railings on
either side of the Grand Entrance. That of Goldsmith was placed in
its present position in January, 1864; and that of Burke in April,
1868. They are both admirable. The statue of Goldsmith especially
is one of the finest, if not the finest work of the sculptor.
THE MODERN COLLEGE.
[Illustration: _Ampelopsis veitchii._]
The most distinguishing characteristic, from a material point of
view, of Trinity College as it now stands in the heart of the City
of Dublin, is perhaps that of spaciousness. It is the College of
magnificent distances; for a space of over twenty-eight acres is
enclosed by the outermost walls--twenty-eight acres of granite
and of green sward, of park and plantation, of shrubbery and
wilderness, of noble buildings and of uninteresting enclosures.
Like most people and many places, Trinity College has what
the French call _les défauts de ses qualités_. With abundant
elbow-room, yet not without a touch of dreariness; with a site
unsurpassed in any modern city, and needing nothing but variety
in elevation, and running water, to make it unrivalled in the
world--its very vastness makes it somewhat bare, its very dignity
makes it somewhat cold, its very spaciousness makes it somewhat
scattered. The granite of its buildings is grey; the limestone and
freestone are grey; the slated roofs are grey. It would require a
regiment of scarlet Lancers to give colour to the quadrangle.[144]
To compare is usually idle, and is often impertinent; but it
is obviously impossible to find, in an _enceinte_ of hard upon
thirty acres, the warmth and wealth of treatment, the perfection
of finish, the fulness and richness of detail, that are so
happily realised when the tender care of half-a-dozen centuries
has been devoted to the adornment of a single quadrangle, to the
artistic treatment of two or three acres of ground. And it must
be remembered that all that we now see in Trinity College is the
work of little over a century of most diligent and most faithful
care. For some hundred and fifty years after the foundation of
the University, the buildings of the new College seemed to have
sufficed for the accommodation of the students; but in October,
1751, a petition of the Provost, Fellows, and Scholars of the
College of Dublin to the Irish Parliament set forth “That the
said College does not contain chambers sufficient for lodging
the number of young gentlemen who, for several years past, have
been sent thither for education, and that many of the buildings
of the said College are, from length of time, become ruinous, and
are not capable of being restored; that by the Statutes of the
College no provision is made for new buildings, or for any other
than the annual repairs of the buildings originally provided,
notwithstanding which the petitioners have expended several large
sums, which by great care they have saved out of the ordinary
expenses of the College, on necessary public buildings, and to
increase the number of chambers for the reception of students.”
Five thousand pounds were granted by Parliament in response to this
petition, and the money was expended on the necessary buildings.
Two years afterwards (1753) we find a further sum of ten thousand
pounds placed at the disposal of the College authorities by the
Irish Government. The money was spent, and well spent, on building.
And a further petition, on the 1st of November, 1755, was presented
to George II., and a further grant of twenty thousand pounds
made to the College to enable them to rebuild the West Front. In
1757, the College authorities appear once more as petitioners to
Parliament, stating that they have, with all possible expedition
and care, finished the said north side for which former grants
had been made, and are now rebuilding the front, for which
further funds were needed; and a further and final sum of ten
thousand pounds was then placed at their disposal by His Majesty’s
Government. And the College accounts show that between 1752 and
1763 a gross sum of £48,820 had been expended on the work of
construction.
Of the buildings that were erected in Trinity College at the end
of the sixteenth century, we have neither roof nor foundation now
remaining. Of the still older buildings that stood on Hoggen Green
in 1583, we have neither trace nor exact record, beyond that they
contained a church, a steeple, a building with a vault under it,
and the spytor already alluded to.
[Illustration: TRINITY COLLEGE--WEST FRONT.]
In a curious old print, however, of the beginning of the eighteenth
century, some buildings are figured abutting upon the Library,
and running westwards in the direction of the present Theatre,
which were probably a portion of the old buildings erected in
1594. The lines of the Cistercian Monastery are supposed by Mr.
Drew, the accomplished architect of the University, to have
been a square, of which the south side occupied the site now
partially covered by the Theatre, and extending to the north
about half way across the present main quadrangle of Parliament
Square. That a sixteenth-century College should retain no stone of
sixteenth-century masonry is certainly regrettable. But what is
far more remarkable is, that of the presumably more appropriate
and substantial structures which were in existence when William of
Orange landed at Torbay, not a vestige is standing at the present
time. And of the noble buildings which now compose the College, by
far the greater part is no older than the reign of King George III.
The University has ever been, as it is, one of the few entirely
satisfactory and successful institutions planted by England in
the sister isle, and it has ever promoted sound learning and
religious education; but architecture, or even good building, was
for the first century and a-half of its existence most certainly
not its strong point. Nor has Irish artistic feeling at any time
been commonly expressed in Architecture. Ireland has given to the
Empire soldiers and statesmen, poets and orators, philosophers and
divines, men of science and men of action, governors, ministers,
judges, in numbers and in eminence quite out of proportion to her
population and her advantages. But of architects of the first or
even of the second class, no Irishman has inscribed his name on
the roll of honour as a designer of great works at home or abroad.
The domestic architecture and the national ecclesiastical style
of building is poor, mean, and uninteresting; and although Dublin
to-day is adorned with many handsome structures, none of them
can be said to have any peculiarly national characteristics, and
of the most important now existing, none are the work of native
architects. Gandon, who built the Custom House and part of the
Houses of Parliament, was a Frenchman; Cooly, who designed the
Exchange and the Four Courts, was an Englishman;[145] Cassels, who
did some of the best eighteenth-century work in Trinity College,
was a German; Sir William Chambers, who designed the Theatre and
the Chapel in Parliament Square, and who was perhaps the greatest
British architect of the eighteenth century, was a Scotchman.[146]
Nor does the architect, native or foreign, appear to have been
held in honour at the University a hundred and fifty years ago.
The very name of the designer of the admirable west front of the
College is forgotten, unrecorded even in the College accounts;
and the architect of the Provost’s House, who bore the very Saxon
name of Smith, is stated to have received a fee of £22 15s. for
his services. The art could scarcely flourish on such very slender
patronage! But whoever the designers may have been, and however
remunerated, the College builders of the seventeenth century
must have been grossly incompetent. For though work of various
kinds seems to have been in constant progress from 1592 to the
beginning of the eighteenth century, we find in 1751 that many of
the buildings had, from length of time, become ruinous, and were
not even capable of being restored. Nor does any great improvement
appear even in the eighteenth century. The new Dining Hall, put up
in 1740, had to be taken down to prevent its tumbling about the
students’ ears in 1750; and the Bell Tower, completed only in 1746,
at a cost of nearly £4,000, was “removed” in 1791, as already,
after a life of only five-and-forty years, it was “entirely
unsafe.” But in the last half-century very different work has been
done. The noble Campanile, erected in 1853, is at once admirable
in design and most solid in construction, and, above all, most
appropriately placed. The New Square, which covers a part of what
was once suggestively termed the Wilderness, is irreproachable, if
not very interesting in design and workmanship; and the Venetian
Palace that forms its southern side affords some of that colour and
variety which is so sadly wanting in other parts of the College,
and is in itself a structure that would command admiration in any
town or country. And the new buildings of the Medical School, if
plain and unpretentious, are simple and appropriate and dignified
in design, and their cut granite looks well fitted to last for a
thousand years.
[Illustration: THE PROVOST’S HOUSE, FROM GRAFTON STREET.]
THE PROVOST’S HOUSE.
The Provost’s House is commonly said to be a copy of a design by
Lord Burlington for General Wade’s house in Piccadilly. General,
or rather Field-Marshal Wade was a notable person in his day.
He put down the Glasgow Riots in 1727, and did much towards the
pacification of Scotland by the construction of the celebrated
military roads in the Highlands. He also commanded the English
army in Lancashire and Yorkshire at the time of the Pretender’s
invasion of England in 1745. His house, which was built in 1723,
was not in Piccadilly, nor in any street leading out of it, but in
Cork Street, extending back as far as Old Burlington Street; and on
Marshal Wade’s death in 1748 it was sold by auction, according to
Horace Walpole,[147] to Lord Chesterfield, and seems afterwards to
have been the town house of the Marquess Cornwallis, and known as
Cornwallis House.[148] And in 1826 it was added to, and included
with Sir Thomas Neaves’ house, next door, as the Burlington Hotel,
now Nos. 19, and 20, Cork Street.[149] The façade and ground plan
of Lord Burlington’s design is given by Campbell, Moore, and
Gandon in their _Vitruvius Britannicus_, vol. iii., plate 10; and
the house is there said to be in Great Burlington Street (now Old
Burlington Street), a much older street than Cork Street. Marshal
Wade’s house has been scarcely altered since it was built in the
eighteenth century; his arms are still over the front entrance in
the court, and the interior is characteristic and interesting.[150]
The working plans of the Dublin house were prepared by a local
architect of the name of Smith; and he received for his work, as
already mentioned, the modest sum of £22 15s., as is shown by the
College accounts for 1759.
The mansion stands on the east side of Grafton Street, about twenty
yards from the western side of the Parliament Square. The main
entrance is from Grafton Street, through a spacious courtyard,
enclosed by a granite wall 310 feet in length, and is entered
by a handsome gateway. There is a private corridor, or covered
way, which connects the house directly with Parliament Square
within the walls of the College. The façade is of granite, finely
ashlared. The ground story is of icicled and rusticated work, over
which a range of Doric pilasters, with their architrave, frieze,
and cornice supporting a high pitched roof with no eave. In the
principal story are five windows, with balusters beneath, arranged
two on either side of a large Venetian window, with columns and
ornaments of the Tuscan order. The interior of the house is
original and interesting; the hall and ante-hall are spacious and
dignified; the circular staircase, which is lighted by a lofty
domed skylight, leads up to a fine suite of apartments. On the
ground floor, with an entrance from the hall, and approached
through an ante-room, is the large dining-room, which is now
used as the Provost’s Library and as the Board-room, where the
Provost and Senior Fellows assemble in council to deliberate upon
the administration and government of the College. In this room
and in the ante-room is a collection of portraits of all the
Provosts, from the time of Adam Loftus to Dr. MacDonnell, and of
many of the distinguished Fellows and Professors of the College,
and other important personages connected with the University.
On the staircase is a portrait of George I., by Sir Godfrey
Kneller; another of George III., by Allan Ramsay; and one of Hugh
Boulter, Archbishop of Armagh, painted by Bindon for the Foundling
Hospital. All these are full-length portraits. The most interesting
picture in the house is, perhaps, a half-length portrait of Queen
Elizabeth, by Zucchero, hanging in the large drawing-room; where
there is also a full-length portrait by Gainsborough--the artistic
gem of the collection--of John Russell, Duke of Bedford, Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland, 1757, and Chancellor of the University of
Dublin. There is also in the drawing-room a half-length portrait
of Archbishop Ussher, one of the earliest Fellows of the College
(Professor of Divinity, 1607; Vice-Chancellor of the University,
1614; and Archbishop of Armagh, 1624), and buried, like Primate
Boulter, in Westminster Abbey. In the Provost’s apartments on the
ground floor is a picture of Adam Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin and
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, 1567, and first Provost of Trinity
College, 1592, by an unknown artist, as well as a copy of the same
by Cregan; and a head of Archbishop Ussher. There are two portraits
said to be of Samuel Winter, the Puritan Provost appointed by
Cromwell in 1562, but possibly portraits of Luke Challoner, one
of the more distinguished founders of the University. There are
also portraits of Sir William Temple, Provost of Trinity College,
1609; John Stearne, M.D., Fellow of Trinity College, 1660; Michael
Ward, D.D., Provost, 1674, Vice-Chancellor of the University, 1678;
Anthony Dopping, D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, 1662; Narcissus
Marsh, Provost of Trinity College, 1678; St. George Ashe, D.D.,
Provost, 1692; Peter Browne, D.D., Provost, 1699; H.R.H. George,
Prince of Wales, Chancellor of the University of Dublin, 1715;
Sir Hans Sloane, Bart., M.D. of the University of Dublin, who
died in 1752; Sir Philip Tisdall, Privy Councillor and M.P. for
the University, 1739; William Clements, M.D., Fellow of Trinity
College, 1733, M.P. 1761; Francis Andrews, LL.D., Provost, 1758, by
Antonio Maroni; Bryan Robinson, M.D., Regius Professor of Physic
in the University, 1745, by Wilson; John Hely Hutchinson, LL.D.,
Provost, 1774, and Secretary of State for Ireland, by Peacock;
Richard Murray, D.D. Provost, 1795, by Cumming; Hugh Hamilton,
D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, 1751; Henry Dalzac, D.D., Fellow
of Trinity College, 1760; John Forsayeth, D.D., Fellow of Trinity
College, 1762; John Kearney, D.D., Provost, 1799, by Cumming;
Matthew Young, D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, 1775; George Hall,
D.D., Provost, 1806, by Cumming; Arthur Browne, LL.D., Fellow
of Trinity College, 1777, by Hamilton; Thomas Elrington, D.D.,
Provost, 1811, by Foster; Bartholomew Lloyd, D.D., Provost, 1831,
by Campanile; Samuel Kyle, D.D., Provost, 1820; Franc Sadleir,
D.D., Provost, 1837; Richard MacDonnell, D.D., Provost, 1852, by
Catterson Smith.
[Illustration: DRAWING ROOM, PROVOST’S HOUSE.]
The various offices attached to the house are conveniently disposed
in the wings, the height of the ground story. The rooms at the back
of the mansion look out upon a large lawn and pleasure-ground,
beyond which are the Fellows’ Garden and the College Park. From
the windows of the house to the Cricket Pavilion at the further
end of the Park is nearly a quarter of a mile of green sward, a
noble expanse in the heart of a great city. The only intervening
structure is a small building of Portland stone, of pseudo Greek or
classical design--the Magnetical Observatory. This little temple
of modern science was built in the year 1837 at the instigation of
the celebrated mathematician, Dr. Humphrey Lloyd, afterwards (1867)
Provost of Trinity College; and at the time of its completion in
1838 it was the only observatory specifically devoted to magnetic
research--with the exception of that at Greenwich, under the
direction of the Astronomer-Royal--in the United Kingdom. And
it was here that Dr. Lloyd conducted those numerous and most
interesting experiments, of which the results were communicated to
many successive meetings of the British Association. The building
itself, in the Doric order of architecture, was erected under the
superintendence and from the design of Mr. Frederic Darley, of
Dublin. The front elevation is not ungraceful, being partly copied
from an Athenian model. But the architectural beauty of the rest
of the building has been sacrificed to the scientific necessities
of the interior, and the result is very far from satisfactory as a
work of art. It stands in latitude 53° 21′ N. and longitude 16° 6′
W. It is forty feet in length by thirty feet in width, constructed
of Portland stone, the interior being of the calpe, or argillaceous
limestone of the valley of Dublin. Several specimens of each
of these stones were submitted to severe tests, and found to be
entirely devoid of any magnetic influence. To preserve a uniform
temperature, and also as a protection from damp, the walls are
studded internally. The nails employed in the wood-work are all of
copper, and all locks and metal work of every kind throughout the
building of brass or gun metal. No iron, of course, was used in any
part of the work. The interior is divided into one principal room
and two smaller rooms, lighted by a dome at the top, and by one
window at either end of the building.
A complete account of this Observatory within and without, and of
the numerous and most interesting instruments which it contains,
will be found in _An Account of the Magnetical Observatory of
Dublin, and of the Instruments and Methods of Observation employed
there_, by the Rev. Humphrey Lloyd, D.D., University Press, 1842.
WEST FRONT.
The principal or west front of Trinity College, looking on to
Grafton Street, College Green, and the old Houses of Parliament,
now occupied by the Bank of Ireland, is a Palladian façade three
hundred feet in length and sixty-five feet in height, occupying
the whole of the eastern side of the large paved space which is
still called College Green. The centre or principal _corps de
logis_ is one hundred feet in length. The entablature is supported
by four detached columns with Corinthian capitals; and a bold but
simple pediment surmounts the whole. At either corner is a square
pilaster with a Corinthian capital. The building is continued on
either side of this centre to a distance of seventy feet of plain
and unadorned construction; the ground story of rustic ashlar, the
remainder of fine cut granite. The north and south extremities of
this great front are formed by two square pavilions rising above
the height of the wings, and projecting about ten feet from the
curtain line. The pavilions are pierced by four handsome Palladian
windows, in the north and west and in the south and west fronts
respectively; and the construction is ornamented at the projecting
angles by coupled pilasters of the Corinthian order, supporting
an attic story, surmounted by a very satisfactory balustrade. In
the entire façade are fifty-one windows regularly disposed, giving
light to four stories of rooms. According to the original plan the
centre of the building was to have been crowned by a dome, and the
abandonment of what might have given additional nobility to the
whole is said to have been merely due to want of sufficient funds.
But the elevation as it is, is not wanting in dignity; and though
somewhat severe in its outlines, it gives the impression at once of
simplicity without meanness, of solidity without heaviness, and of
richness without extravagance of detail.
[Illustration: TOP OF STAIRCASE, REGENT’S HALL.]
The principal masonry is of finely grained and dressed granite,
quarried in the mountainous district of the County Dublin. The
columns and pilasters which support the entablature are throughout
of Portland stone. The ashlaring is entirely of fine granite. The
only independent ornamentation is in the form of rich wreaths of
fruit and flowers, carved in bold relief above and below the large
centre window and the windows in the pavilion. In the centre of
this west front is a handsome doorway, surmounted by a circular
arch, and immediately within is an octagonal vestibule with a
groined and vaulted roof. On the left of the entrance is the
porter’s lodge. The entire length of this doubly vaulted gateway is
seventy-two feet. The interior or eastern front of the building,
facing the quadrangle, is simpler, but on similar lines to that
already described as facing the street. The pavilions, however,
are wanting in the eastern front, their place being taken by the
adjoining buildings looking to the north and the south, forming
an angle with the front, and making three sides of the incomplete
quadrangle to which the principal doorway affords an entrance.
Above the great gateway, in the centre of the façade, with windows
looking both to the west over College Green and to the east over
the great square of the College, is a large room or hall, at
first used as a Regent House for the meetings of Masters of Arts,
afterwards as a Museum, and from the transfer of the specimens to
the new Museum in the College Park in 1876 as an Examination Hall.
This fine room is reached by a spacious staircase from the great
gateway of the College. It is sixty-two feet long by forty-six
feet broad, well lighted, but somewhat bare. Three pictures are
hung on the walls--one of the Right Honourable Sir Joseph Napier,
Lord Chancellor of Ireland and Vice-Chancellor of the University
in 1867, in his state robes; a poor picture of the great Bishop
Berkeley; and a pleasant portrait of Dr. William Hales, sometime
Fellow of Trinity College, painted in 1769.
[Illustration: PARLIAMENT AND LIBRARY SQUARES.]
[Illustration: LIBRARY SQUARE.]
The name of the accomplished architect who designed the west façade
of the College is, strange to say, lost to history; but we know at
least that Sir William Chambers, the architect of Somerset House,
designed the buildings looking on Parliament Square, as well as the
fronts of the Theatre and Chapel, and that the work was carried
out from his drawings--for he never visited Ireland--by his very
accomplished assistant, a Lancashire artist of the name of Mayers,
who also designed and superintended the internal decorations
of the Theatre and the Chapel. There is good reason to suppose
that some of the ornamental work of the façade, by whomsoever
originally designed, was carried out by Smith, the modest architect
or handicraftsman who prepared the plans for the Provost’s House
in 1759. There are two large clocks--separate timepieces--placed
over the inner and outer pediments of the façade respectively,
showing the time within and without the College. They are built
upon horizontal cast-iron plates, with 7in. main wheels, dead
beat escapements, and electro-magnetic seconds. The pendulums are
connected by wire with the Observatory at Dunsink. The time is
indicated upon cast-iron dials, enamelled dark blue, and each 6ft.
6in. in diameter. Both these clocks were placed in their present
position in 1878.
The noble expanse of ground that is enclosed by the principal
buildings of the College is too large to be called a quadrangle,
being six hundred and ten feet long, by three hundred and forty
feet broad, at the widest part, and it is too irregular in shape
to be called a square. It is the survival of at least five more
ancient and less spacious enclosures--(1) the Old Square,[151]
built in 1685, and taken down in 1751 to make room for the present
handsome granite buildings known as Parliament Square, in grateful
memory of the source from which the funds had been provided for
the building; the Library Square, built in 1698, and the oldest
portion of the College buildings now in existence, and which was
itself divided into two quadrangles (2 and 3) by some new buildings
standing east and west, which were taken down in the middle of the
eighteenth century. The space between the present Dining Hall and
the Fellows’ Garden was also divided into two quadrangles (4 and
5) by the old Hall and the old Chapel, which formed a continuation
of these departed “New Buildings” to the westward, as far as the
centre of Parliament Square.
THE CHAPEL.
The front of the Chapel, designed by Sir William Chambers, and
erected between 1787 and 1789, at a cost of £22,000, is similar
to that of the Theatre that stands opposite. Facing due south, it
is ninety-six feet wide, with a deep and very handsome tetrastyle
portico, forty-eight feet wide, of the Roman Corinthian order,
immediately within which is a narthex or ante-chapel, in which is
the main doorway of the building. The interior of the Chapel is
eighty feet in length, exclusive of a semicircular apse six feet in
diameter, at the north end. It is forty feet wide and forty-four
feet high, having an organ loft and semicircular gallery over
the entrance, of good carved oak. In the choir are four ranges
of seats, rising gradually from the aisle to the side walls. The
back row of stalls at the west and east sides are appropriated to
the Fellows and Professors. The walls are wainscoted with finely
polished oak panels to the height of twelve feet, over which is a
broad surbase, from which spring the plain round-headed windows.
The woodwork is elaborately carved, and cost over £5,300. The
piers between the windows are ornamented with coupled pilasters,
fluted, of the Ionic order, surmounted by an ornamented frieze and
cornice. From the latter springs the coved and groined ceiling,
which is painted and enriched with florid stucco ornaments of
Italian design, similar to those employed in the same position
in the Theatre. The ceiling of the Chapel is, however, somewhat
more elaborate in design. In the year 1817, the number of students
resident within the walls of the College increased to such an
extent, that to afford accommodation for the necessarily increased
attendance at Chapel, an iron gallery was put up along the east
and west walls of the building. This was removed in 1872, when the
floor of the Chapel was laid in black and red tiles of good design,
and the marble steps and rails before the Communion Table were
presented by the Provost, Dr. Humphrey Lloyd. At the same time,
the oil lamps that were fitted to the fine brass chandeliers that
hung from the east and west walls were replaced by gas burners. In
the apse are three large round-headed windows, without tracery or
ornamentation, which have recently been filled with painted glass.
That on the north-west, representing the Recapitulation of the Law
by Moses, and the Restoration under Solomon, was erected in memory
of Dr. Richard Graves, by his son and other relations, in 1865. The
window facing north-east was erected in memory of the great Bishop
Berkeley by the Right Hon. R. R. Warren, when Attorney-General for
Ireland, in 1867.
[Illustration: THE CHAPEL.]
The central window directly over the Communion Table was erected
in memory of Archbishop Ussher by Dr. Butcher, Bishop of Meath,
in 1869. This window was painted in Munich, and the price, £300,
which was paid by Dr. Butcher, was one quarter’s salary of the
Regius Professorship of Divinity, of which office he continued
for three months to perform the duties, after his consecration
as Bishop of Meath. Partly over the narthex or ante-chapel, in
the deep recess under the portico, and partly over the stalls of
the Provost and Senior Fellows, is the spacious organ gallery, in
which is placed the organ. When the present Chapel was approaching
completion, a commission was given to Green, the favourite
organ-builder of George III., to provide an instrument suitable
for the new building. The price was to be five hundred guineas.
And an instrument sweet rather than powerful in tone, like most of
Green’s, was accordingly placed in the organ loft. All that now
remains of this organ of Green’s is the present choir manual of
only four stops. On account of the beauty of its stopt diapason
(deep, and not deformed by the usual quintation effect), the Board
retained this choir organ manual, but they were induced in 1838
to abandon the remainder to Telford, a local builder, who sold
it to the Church at Durrow, Queen’s County, where Mr. Flower,
subsequently Lord Ashbrook, maintained for some time a choir
and the Cathedral service. In its place in the College Chapel,
Telford put up a Great Organ and Swell Organ, which were used in
conjunction with Green’s older manual and an imperfect pedal organ.
In 1879 these two manuals and the pedals were enlarged, altered,
and greatly improved, and further additions were made by Hill &
Son, of London; and the mahogany cases of Green’s instrument were
enlarged to admit of this augmentation. The organ as it stands at
present contains the following stops, all effective and brilliant,
but with none of the harshness to be heard in so many organs of the
present day:--
No. 1.--Swell Organ (Upper Row of Keys).
Compass, double C to F.
Soft Bourdon, 16 feet tone.
Open Diapason, 8 ” ”
Dulciana, 8 ” ”
Flute, 4 ” ”
Principal, 4 ” ”
Fifteenth, 2 ” ”
Piccolo, 1 ” ”
Soft Mixture of 3 ranks, 12, 15, 17.
Oboe, 8 ” ”
Vox humana, 8 ” ”
Trumpet, 8 ” ”
No. 2.--Second Manual or Great Organ, CC to
F Compass.
Open Diapason, 8 feet.
Stopt Diapason, 8 feet tone.
Delicate Gamba, 8 (to tenor C only).
Flute, 4 feet.
Principal, 4 feet.
Fifteenth, 2 feet.
Mixture (bright tone), 3 ranks.
Sesqui altera (soft tone), 3 ranks.
Clarionet (to tenor C), 8 feet tone.
Contra-fagotto, 16 feet (throughout).
Trumpet, 8 feet.
No. 3.--Old Choir Organ, by Green. Compass,
GGG, 12 feet to E in Alt.
Stopt Diapason, 8
Dulciana, 8
Principal, 4
Fifteenth, 2
No. 4.--Two Octaves and a third, in Compass
(Pedal Organ) CC to E.
Sub-Bass, 32
Double Open Diapason, 16
Double Stopt Diapason, 16 feet tone.
Open Diapason, 8 feet.
Among accessory stops, &c., may be counted three coupling actions,
great b pedals, swell to pedals, swell to great organ, tremolo
by a horizontal bar, three hand-levers for shifting stops of the
great organ, labelled “_ff_,” “_mf_,” and “_p_.” The choir organ is
placed behind the performer, like the “Ruck-positif” of Continental
examples.
In the ante-Chapel, on either side of the entrance door, are two
slabs of white marble let into the wall, with the following names
inscribed:--Fr. Sadleir, 1851; Ric. Macdonnell, 1867; Carol. Wall,
1862; Sam. Kyle, 1848; Henric. Wray, 1847; Thom. Prior, 1843;
Steph. Sandes, 1842; Francis C. Hodgkinson, 1840; Bart. Lloyd,
1835; Richd. Murray, 1799; Gul. Newcome, 1800; Matt. Young, 1800;
John Brinkley, 1835; Thom. Elrington, 1835; Geo. Hall, 1811;
John Law, 1810. These are all buried within the precincts of the
Chapel; and the slabs were put up by Provost Lloyd, when it was
determined that intra-mural burial should cease. There are also in
this wall ten mural tablets, with Latin inscriptions, to the memory
of Henricus Wray, ob. 1846; George Hall, 1811; Thomas Elrington,
1835; Geo. Longfield, 1818; Stephen Creagh Sandes, 1842; Thos.
Prior, 1843; Bartholomew Lloyd, 1837; Samuel Kyle, 1848; Sam. John
McClean, 1829. The only inscription of any peculiar interest is to
the memory of Bishop Newcome, and runs as follows:--
Ut singularem qua bonas literas literatosque omnes per totum
vitæ decursum est prosecutus charitatem signaret reliquias suas
in cellula huic vestibulo supposita condi voluit amplissimus
præsul Gulielmus Newcome, D.D., Archiepiscopus Armachanus; Coll.
Hertford apud Oxonienses cujus per novennium negocia Vice-Præses
feliciter administravit. Ab Hiberniæ pro Rege illust. comite
de Hertford ad dignitatem evocatus episcopalem sedem obtinuit;
Dromorensem, Feb., 1766; Ossoriensem, Ap. 1775; Waterford et
Lismore, Oct. 1779; Ardmach totiusque ecclesiæ Hiberniæ Primatum,
Mense Januario, 1795. Natus Abingdonæ in com. Oxon, April 19,
1729. Educatus in coll. Pembroch Oxon. Decessit, Dublini, Jan.
11, 1800. Pietatem summe venerandi antiscitis vitæ morumque
sanctitatem ætas in qua vixit agnovit, ingenium scripta declarant.
CEMETERIUM.
In a neglected corner on the outside of the Chapel, looking
towards the east, railed in, but unprotected from the weather, is
a little burying-ground, where may be seen the tombs of some few
of the Provosts and other distinguished Fellows of the College.
Simple stone slabs on the ground mark the last resting-place of
Dr. Temple, Provost in 1609, and of other unnamed and forgotten
dignitaries, whose remains were removed from the old Chapel when
the new building was consecrated in 1798. The inscription on the
plain flag nearest the entrance is as clear as the day it was cut,
and runs as follows:--
Piae memoriæ sacrum Gulielmi Temple, LL.D., armigeri.
hujusce Collegii Propositi A.D. 1609
atque aliorum quorum reliquiæ
sub antiquo sacello sepultæ
in hoc Cœmeterium translatæ fuere
Anno Domini 1799.
Next to him lies Richard Andrews--
Cujus beneficio Observatorium
Astronomicum conditum atque in
perpetuo constitutum fuit.
He was Provost in 1758, and died in 1774.
The third slab is--
Piæ Memoriæ sacrum
Ricardi Baldwin S.T.P.
hujusce collegii socii
deinde Prœpositi
postremo munificentissimi benefactoris
In præposituram electus fuit
A.D. 1717.
Obiit die 30 Septembris
A.D. 1758.
A large mural tablet with Corinthian columns and alabaster
mantlings, and bearing a long and not particularly interesting
inscription, is raised to the memory of Dr. Browne, the Provost who
is said to have been killed by a brickbat thrown in a College riot
in 1699. The long inscription to his many virtues is silent on this
point.
On the left-hand side of Dr. Browne’s pompous monument is a plain
stone slab in memory of Dr. Stearne, who built the University
Printing House, and was in other ways a distinguished benefactor of
the College. The very curious inscription runs as follows:--
ΚΑΤΑΡΑ ΕΣΤΙ ΜΗ ΑΠΟΘΑΝΕΙΝ[152]
Dixit Epictetus, Credidit
Johannes Stearne
M. & J. U. D. Collegii SS Indiv.
Trinitatis Dublin Socius Senior.
Medicorū ibidem Præses primus qui natus
fuit Arbrachæ 26 Novembris 1624
Denatus fuit Dublin 18 Novembris 1669,
Cujus exuviæ olim resumendæ hic depositæ sunt.
Philosophus Medicus Sumūs Theologus idem
Sternius hâc, nullus jam, requiescit humo
Scilicet ut regnet, Natura quod edidit unum,
Dividit in partes Mors inimica duas,
Sed modo divisus coalescet Sternius, atque
Ibit ab extremo, totus in astra, die.
On the right-hand side, and like all the other monuments removed
from the old Chapel in 1798, is a slab with the following
interesting inscription in Latin verse:--
P.M.S. Thomæ Seele, S.T.D. Hujusce Collegii Dignissimi præsidis et
instauratoris qui obiit Feb 11, Anno Domini MDCLXXIV. Ætatis Suæ
LXIII.
Nuper ab exilio cum Principe Regna redibant,
Et posuere suas Prælia lassa minas.
His solis deerant tam publica commoda tectis,
Exilium Ars passa est, exiliumque Fides.
Præposuit Seelum Carolus, quo præside Musæ
Proscriptæ veteres incoluere Lares.
Tecta Chalonerus pia condidit, obruta Seelus
Instauravit, erat forte creasse minus.
Magna viri doctrina, modestia magna, ruberet
Si sua perlegeret carmine iusta cinis.
Convenit urna loco, debebaturque Sacello.
Non alio sterni pulvere templa decet.
And lastly, there is a large tomb, surmounted by a ghost-like
effigy of Luke Challoner, the real founder of the College in 1592,
which occupies the most important place in the cheerless little
enclosure. The monument, houseless on the destruction of the old
Chapel, could not apparently find shelter in the new building of
1798. The recumbent figure of soft alabaster may once have been
a work of art; at a later stage it may have been interesting to
the antiquarian; at the present day it is merely remarkable as a
geological specimen, a curious illustration of the grotesque result
of the action of water upon alabaster, under certain conditions.
The simple inscription on the tomb reads as follows:--
P.M.S.
Lucæ Chaloner
qui inter primos socios
Collegii S.S. Trinitatis.
A Regina Elizabetha
Constitutus fuit.
A.D. 1592.
obiit die 27 aprilis, A.D. 1613.
The shorter the epitaph the greater the man!
The vaults under the Chapel were closed in 1867. Several of the
Provosts and Senior Fellows were buried in them; the last burial
was that of Provost MacDonnell.
THE THEATRE.
The Examination Hall, or Theatre, as it is more correctly called,
was designed by Sir William Chambers in 1777, and corresponds
in its external appearance exactly with that of the Chapel,
although its interior arrangement is naturally very different.
Ten pilasters, with feeble capitals of a tasteless composite
order, are disposed round the walls, standing each one singly at
intervals of twelve feet on a rustic basement ten feet high, and
supporting a handsome stucco frieze and bold cornice, the work
of Italian artists. The pilasters themselves are ornamented with
stucco scroll-work of florid Roman character. From the cornice
springs the ceiling, which is also very richly ornamented in
stucco, designed, modelled, and painted in the same style as the
ceiling of the Chapel, by Mayers, under the direction of Sir
William Chambers. In the five panels on the east side of the Hall
are placed full-length portraits of Queen Elizabeth, the foundress,
in her state robes; of Archbishop Ussher, Archbishop King, Bishop
Berkeley, and Provost Baldwin.[153] In four of the panels on the
opposite side are portraits of Edmund Burke--not by Sir Joshua
Reynolds, as is usually asserted, but by Hoppner; of William
Molyneux; of Fitzgibbon, Earl of Clare, by Stewart (an American
artist of some reputation); and of Dean Swift. Under the centre
panel is placed an elaborate monument (which is represented in the
accompanying engraving) to Provost Baldwin, who died in 1758. The
monument is some nine feet long and about six feet high and four
feet in depth from the wall, and consists of three figures in white
marble standing over a sarcophagus of dark porphyry. It is the work
of a Dublin artist of the name of Hewetson, who executed it at his
studio at Rome. The Hall is seventy feet long to the base line
of the semicircular apse, which extends to a further distance of
twenty feet, and is forty feet wide and forty-four feet high. It
is lighted by three windows in the circular apse at the upper end,
and by a range of small fan-shaped windows placed over the cornice.
An elaborate gilt chandelier, designed to hold sixty wax candles,
remarkably light and graceful in character, and which belonged to
the old House of Commons in College Green, hangs in the centre of
the Hall (_see page_ 130). At the lower end, and over the deep
portico and doorway, is a room in which is placed a small organ
that formerly stood in the old Chapel, and which is traditionally
said to have been taken out of a Spanish ship which formed part of
the Armada, and was wrecked on the coast of Ireland.
[Illustration: BALDWIN’S MONUMENT.]
But the legend is without form or foundation. The true history of
the organ and its acquisition, however, is sufficiently interesting
to be worth recording. On the 11th of October, 1702, a fleet of
twenty-five English and Dutch ships of war, under the supreme
command of Admiral Rooke, having been foiled in an attack on
Cadiz, sailed into Vigo Bay, where the combined French and Spanish
fleets were then collected. A body of 2,500 soldiers, under the
command of Richard, second Duke of Ormonde,[154] landed under
some fortifications eight or nine miles from the town of Vigo,
silenced the batteries, and captured no less than forty pieces of
cannon. A large number of the enemy’s ships were burned and sunk
by the British fleet, including six great galleons with treasure
on board to the extent of 14,000,000 pieces of eight; and a number
of vessels of all kinds were taken as prizes. Among them was a
ship containing, carefully packed as part of her freight, an
organ destined in all probability for Mexico or Peru--the gift,
it may be, of his most Catholic Majesty Philip the Fifth to some
favoured church in Spanish America. Rooke declined to attack the
town, and sailed away with his prizes to England. He was tried by
court-martial on his arrival, and honourably acquitted, and lived
to earn undying fame two years later by the taking of Gibraltar.
But the Duke of Ormonde enjoyed all the credit of the victory at
Vigo,[155] and was soon after appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
(1703), when he presented the organ, so strangely acquired, to
Trinity College, Dublin. There was a solemn Thanksgiving Service at
St. Paul’s in honour of Ormonde’s victory, at which Queen Anne was
present, and a medal was struck in commemoration of the event, of
which an example may be seen in the College Library. The organ is
said to have been originally built in the Spanish Netherlands, and
was repaired and enlarged in Dublin by Cuvillie in 1705, before it
was placed in the old Chapel. But the instrument that now stands
in the gallery of the Theatre is not the organ as it was presented
by the Duke of Ormonde, or even as it left the hands of Cuvillie.
“When the University Choral Society,” writes Sir Robert Stewart,
“was founded (1837), they resolved to erect an organ for their
accompaniments; and by the aid of the Lord Primate, who contributed
£50 to the cost, this was done, and an instrument of two rows of
keys and pedals was placed at the north end of the Commons Hall
about 1839. But the Society, finding it useless for their purpose,
sold it to the Board, who were glad to remove it from the space
which was required for Commons, Examinations, and Lectures. The
organ case which stands in the gallery of the Examination Hall
contains at present the pipes of the organ built by Telford for
the University Choral Society in 1839. All the old Spanish pipes
having been removed from its interior, the case closely resembles
all those organs built in the eighteenth century, a familiar type
abounding in cherubs, heraldic mantlings, rococo scroll-work, all
being surmounted by the Royal Arms.”[156]
Another more modern legend connected with this Theatre may be worth
recording. When George IV. visited Dublin, he was entertained, as
it was fitting that he should be, by the University. And to make
his way plainer from the Provost’s House to the Theatre, where the
Degrees were conferred in his presence, a part of the wall of the
apse facing the Provost’s House, where his Majesty was received,
was removed, and the grand procession entered the Hall without the
necessity of going round to the main doorway. The masonry on the
outside of the Hall still bears evidence of the destruction and
restoration that was necessitated by this most loyal smoothing of
the path of the royal guest.
One of the greatest improvements of recent times in the College
precincts--a happy artistic inspiration--has been effected at
comparatively small cost either of money or of trouble. In matters
of art and taste, when the right thing is done, the result is
commonly quite out of proportion to the material magnitude of the
work. In the spring of 1892, the low granite wall, with its high
iron railing, which ran from the north-east corner of the Library
Buildings to the side of the Examination Hall, was moved back
some fifty feet. As it stood before, it not only broke in upon
the fine eastern façade of the Examination Hall, ninety feet in
length, but it entirely concealed the lower story of the western
end of the Library, and blocked up the main door of that building;
and its lines were as meaningless and inappropriate as they are
now harmonious and satisfactory. The actual amount of ground thus
thrown into the quadrangle is only about five hundred square yards,
or perhaps one-fiftieth part of the total area of the great square
of the College. But it would be difficult to find a unit to express
the magnitude of the improvement.
THE CAMPANILE.
The old Hall, which extended from the present Campanile in the
direction of the College gate, and parallel to the Library, had a
plain end towards the west, in which was the doorway. The view of
the Hall from the gateway being somewhat unsightly, a sum of £600
was bequeathed to the College by Dean Pratt, formerly Provost, for
the purpose of having an ornamental front erected at this end of
the Hall; and Dr. Gilbert had also left by his will a further sum
of £500 towards the building of a new Belfry. The Board accordingly
employed Mr. Cassels to furnish a design for the combination of
the two objects. The building was commenced in 1740, and in 1746
the new front to the Hall, with a Bell Tower surmounted by a
dome and lantern, was completed, at a total cost of £3,886: and
in 1747 the great Bell of the College, which had been cast at
Gloucester in 1742, and which weighs nearly 37 cwt., was then hung
in this Tower.[157] The upper portion of this Belfry was removed
in 1791, having been condemned as unsafe, and the entire front
was taken down in 1798. The present Belfry, or _Campanile_, as
it is usually called, is the gift of Lord John George Beresford,
when Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, in 1852. It
is an isolated monumental building in the centre of Parliament
Square--an architectural composition of three stages. The lower
or basement stage is square in plan, and of the Doric order,
elevated on a bold podium or sub-basement of rusticated granite
ashlar. Each side presents an open archway between two pairs of
Doric pilasters, the pilasters being raised on pedestals, and
the whole surmounted by a Doric entablature. The keystones of
arches have carved heads, representing Homer, Socrates, Plato, and
Demosthenes. This story is built of granite, with chamfered joints
and raised panels, the alternate courses of pilasters being raised
in the same manner. From the blocking of the entablature rises a
stage of circular steps, the angles of blocking being occupied
by pedestals supporting figures representing Divinity, Science,
Medicine, and Law. From the upper step of this chamber rises the
bell-chamber--circular in plan, and formed by eight Corinthian
columns, attached, and raised on pedestals. The space between
each pair of columns is pierced by a semicircular-headed opening,
filled with ornamental ironwork. The Corinthian entablature above
is broken over each column. From this level rises the dome, divided
vertically by bands in continuation of the columns below, the
intervals being carved to resemble overlapping leaves. This dome
is surmounted by a small open lantern, formed by piers and arches;
above these is a small dental cornice, finished by a smaller dome,
carved like the one below. The whole is surmounted by a gilt cross.
Portland stone is used from the upper circular step; the rest is
cut granite. The total height is about one hundred feet.[158]
The gradation of the composition from the square basement to the
circular belfry stage is designed with remarkable artistic ability.
It is by a series of stepped courses, and the angles or “broaches”
are happily filled by the sitting figures, adapted to their
place with great skill by the late Mr. Thomas Kirke, R.H.A., the
sculptor. The whole design, while of refined and “correct” classic
detail, is of an original character, skilfully adapted to its
isolated position. The architect engaged in its erection in 1852-3
was the late Sir Charles Lanyon, R.H.A., then Mr. Lanyon, and,
associated with him, Mr. W. H. Lynn, R.H.A., both of whom continued
to design buildings in the Roman Classic manner with skill and
refinement throughout a period known as that of the Gothic revival,
when this style was for a time under undeserved popular disfavour.
Few architects of the day would have been found to adapt a design,
with such good judgment and restraint, to the _genius loci_ of
Trinity College, and to the surrounding architecture, the work in
the previous century of Sir William Chambers. The foundation-stone
of the Campanile was laid by the donor, His Grace Lord John George
Beresford, Lord Primate of all Ireland, who was also Chancellor of
the University, on the 1st of December, 1852; and the great Bell
was first rung in the new Belfry before Divine Service on Sunday,
November 26th, 1854.
[Illustration: THE BELL TOWER, FROM THE PROVOST’S GARDEN.]
THE HALL.
In the early part of the eighteenth century, the want of a
commodious and appropriate Dining Hall for the use of the members
of the College began to be seriously felt. In a pamphlet of the
year 1734, it is stated that attendance of the Fellows at Commons
was never as good as could be wished, and that this was attributed
to the uncomfortable condition of the then existing Hall, which
was a large and spacious room, flagged, open to the air at both
ends, never warmed by fire--“in fact, the coldest room in Europe.”
There was, moreover, no Common Room in the College, in which the
Fellows could pass the evening together. In 1740, Dr. Elwood, the
Vice-Provost, bequeathed £1,000 for the use of the College, which
the Board determined to apply to the purpose of building a Hall.
Plans were prepared by Mr. Cassels, and the work at once put in
hand; and the new building was completed in 1745. But the Hall, so
erected at a total cost of £3,020, must have been unusually badly
built, for we find that at a meeting of the Board--November 13,
1758--it was ordered that the Dining Hall should be pulled down,
the foundation walls having sagged to a dangerous extent on the
laying of the new kitchen; and “Mr. Plummer, the bricklayer”--the
name reads like a jest--was dismissed from the service of the
College for his negligence in connection with the execution of the
work. Mr. Plummer was apparently replaced by a better workman.
A new building was at once commenced, and although Mr. Cassels,
the architect, had unfortunately died while superintending the
construction of the Duke of Leinster’s new house at Carton, his
plans were carefully followed, and the Dining Hall as we now see
it was finished about 1761, and is apparently as solid as it
was the day Mr. Plummer’s successor laid the last stone of the
edifice.[159] It is a detached building, in the lower part of which
are the kitchen, cellars, and other offices. It presents a handsome
front, fifty feet wide, of granite, with an angular pediment
supported by six Ionic pilasters of cut granite. The main door is
approached by a broad flight of ten steps, rising to a height of
five feet from the base line, the whole width of the front.
[Illustration: THE DINING HALL, VIEWED FROM LIBRARY SQUARE.]
The clock in the pediment was for a long time the only public dial
in the College, and though it neither is nor was of any particular
interest as a timepiece, it was, until October 15th, 1870, somewhat
remarkable as timekeeper, the College time being a quarter of an
hour behind the world in Dublin.[160] Within the building, and
approached through a spacious outer hall or vestibule, is the
Dining Room or Hall proper, a fine room 70 ft. long, 35 ft. broad,
and 35 ft. high; it is wainscoted to the height of 12 ft. with oak
panels surmounted by a plain moulding. Over this, on the east side,
are four large plain round-headed windows carried quite up to the
cornice, which, together with a handsome Venetian window at the
north or upper end, opposite to the entrance, and over the Fellows’
tables, gives abundant light to the Hall. The west side is without
windows, but in their place are seven recesses, in each of which
hangs a full-length portrait of some one of the many distinguished
graduates of the University. The niches are finished with broad
mouldings in stucco, and immediately over them runs a bold deep
cornice, of Italian design. From this cornice springs the ceiling,
which is coved for about 10 ft. from the cornice, and flat in the
middle throughout its whole length. In this uppermost rib have
lately been fixed two fine sunlights for gas, by which the Hall is
brilliantly illuminated without heat or glare.
Round the room hang the following pictures:--
1. Frederick, Prince of Wales, by Hudson.
2. Provost Baldwin.
3. Archbishop Price.
4. } { Viscount Avonmore, }
5. } Four Judges, { Lord Downes, } all by Joseph.
6. } { Viscount Kilwarden, }
7. } { Chief Baron Hussey Burgh, }
8. Primate Lord John Beresford, by Catterson Smith.
9. Lord Chancellor Cairns, by Duncan.
10. Henry Grattan, by Hill.
11. Henry Flood.
12. The Earl of Rosse, Chancellor of the University, by
Catterson Smith.
[Illustration: INTERIOR OF DINING HALL.]
The Common Room over the great Entrance Hall is fifty feet
long by nearly thirty feet broad, with a number of pictures of
distinguished Fellows hung round the walls--Provost Barrett,
by Joseph, and Provost Wall, by Catterson Smith; the great
Bishop Berkeley, by Lathem, with an engraving of the same by
Brooks, and a letter relating thereto framed and hung under the
portrait;[161] Dr. Townsend; the present Provost--Dr. Salmon, Dr.
Haughton, and Dr. Longfield, by Miss Purser; the late Provost,
Dr. Jellett, by Chancellor; Dr. Magee, Archbishop of Dublin,
and grandfather of the late Bishop of York, by Sir Martin Archer
Shee, P.R.A.; Archbishop Palliser, by an unknown artist. A copy of
a portrait of the Earl of Mornington, sometime Professor of Music
in the University, and father of the great Duke of Wellington:
the original, by Yeats, is now at Apsley House. And the last
acquisition is a portrait of the first Provost, Adam Loftus,[162]
presented to the College by Lord Iveagh in 1891. There is also hung
in the ante-room another smaller portrait of Provost Loftus in an
oval frame.
[Illustration: THE ENGINEERING SCHOOL, FROM COLLEGE PARK.]
THE ENGINEERING SCHOOL.
The modern Venetian Palace in which the Engineering School of
the College is so nobly lodged--a building which called forth
the hearty commendation of Mr. Ruskin--was designed by the firm
of Sir Thomas Deane, Son & Woodward, who subsequently were the
architects of the University Museum at Oxford. The contractors were
Gilbert Cockburn & Son. The building was erected in 1854-5, at a
cost of £26,000. The carving of the capitals and other stone-work
was done by two Cork workmen of the name of O’Shea, who were
afterwards employed by the architects in the elaborate carvings
executed for the Oxford Museum. The style has been described as
Byzantine Renaissance of a Venetian type; but the building is
in truth a highly original and beautiful conception worked out
into a harmonious and satisfactory whole. The base is, critically
considered, perhaps the best part. The exterior may suggest Venice,
and the interior certainly suggests Cordova; and yet there is
nothing incongruous with the very different surroundings, nor is
there in the work any of that patchiness so often apparent in
adaptations of foreign styles. It is something in itself complete,
dignified, and appropriate. The general dimensions are--length,
160ft.; width, 91ft.; height, 49ft. to the eaves. The building
is faced with granite ashlar, with Portland stone dressings
elaborately carved. The building, as is shown in the accompanying
drawing of the southern façade, looking on the College Park, is
of two stories, with a broad and richly carved string course
marking the division. The round-headed windows are disposed most
effectively in groups: in the façade there is a group of four in
the centre, one on either side, and a group of three at either
end; in the east and west fronts there is a group of three in the
centre, and one on either side. The arches of all these spring from
square pilasters carved in florid style in Portland stone, and
under the windows of the upper story are low balustrades. Between
the groups of windows in either façade are discs of coloured
marble let into the masonry, and with a circular bordure of carved
Portland stone and smaller pieces of marble; the whole harmonising
with the windows and forming a most effective ornament--simple,
original, and interesting. At each corner of the building are
scroll pilasters of great beauty. The roof is low pitched, and an
Italian cantilever cornice forms the eaves.
[Illustration: HALL AND STAIRCASE, ENGINEERING SCHOOL.]
[Illustration: ENTRANCE TO ENGINEERING SCHOOL.]
The accompanying illustration represents the main doorway opening
on to the New Square, and looking to the north. Within the building
is a spacious Hall lined with Bath stone ashlar, with low marble
pillars and rich stone capitals, twenty-four in number, disposed
at different levels, and supporting Moorish arches; the whole
suggestive, at least, of the architecture of Moslem Spain. The
first floor is reached by a broad staircase of Portland stone,
with a handrail. Irish marble is used in the pillars and Irish
Serpentine in the handrail of the staircase. Two pillars of
Penzance Serpentine are the only pieces of marble not of Irish
production.[163] The whole is lighted by two low pendentive domes
constructed of coloured enamelled bricks, arranged in geometric
patterns, and singularly light and free in construction. The height
from the floor is 46ft. 6in. The illustration on next page shows
the Hall and Staircase looking east. Half-way up the staircase,
facing the main entrance, is the clock in magnetic connection
with the Observatory at Dunsink. It is a Regulator, fitted with
an electro-magnetic pendulum; and was put up in March 1878. An
electric current is sent out automatically every second by the
standard clock at Dunsink Observatory. This current goes first
through and controls the clock which releases the Time Ball at the
Port and Docks Offices, then through the public clock in front
of that office, and on to the standard clock in Trinity College.
From this clock the current is sent out through the two timepieces
over the Entrance Gate within and without the College, and then
on to the Royal Dublin Society, where it controls the clock in
the Entrance Hall. The Time Ball at the Port and Docks Office is
furnished with an electrical arrangement, designed by Sir Robert
Ball,[164] which automatically signals at Dunsink the moment the
Time Ball falls, so that any error in time is immediately known to
the person in charge. All the electrical arrangements were made and
fitted up by Messrs. Yeates & Son of Grafton Street.
[Illustration: CARVINGS AT BASE OF STAIRCASE.]
In addition to a fine Drawing School and numerous Lecture Rooms,
some of which are used by the Professors of Divinity and Law,
this building also contains the Geological and Mineralogical
collections, a series of engineering models, and a collection of
instruments for Natural Philosophy researches. For the workshops
attached, the motive power is supplied by an Otto gas engine.
THE PRINTING HOUSE.
The Printing House, a charming little antique temple standing
at the extreme north-east of the Library Square, was designed
by Cassels, and built between 1726 and 1734, at a cost of about
£1,200, which was almost entirely provided by Dr. Stearne, Bishop
of Clogher. The tetrastyle portico is of Roman Doric, nearly
8 ft. in width, with a bold cornice and triglyphs, and a plain
metope, all in fine Portland stone. And the smoke of a hundred and
fifty years has already sufficed to give it a somewhat venerable
appearance. Underneath the portico and immediately over the door is
the following inscription:--
R. R. Joannes Stearne,
Episcopus Clogherensis,
Vice-Cancellarius hujus Academiæ,
Pro benevolentia quam habuit
In Academiam et rem literariam
Posuit, A.D. 1734.
[Illustration: THE PRINTING OFFICE, FROM NEW SQUARE.]
BOTANY BAY.
Botany Bay Square, said by Mr. Wright[165] to have been designed by
Provost Murray, lies to the extreme north, and behind the northern
buildings of Library Square. It was built in 1812, and is a cold
and somewhat neglected-looking quadrangle without any architectural
pretensions. It encloses just one statute acre and a-half of
ground, with some grass in the centre, fenced in by a poor railing,
and planted with the scarlet flowering hawthorn. Were the buildings
covered with ivy, the square enlivened with trim green sward and
flowering shrubs, and the present railing removed, Botany Bay would
still be a long way behind picturesque Port Philip. But its name
would be somewhat better justified than it is at present.
THE LIBRARY.
As regards the Library, one of the most ancient of the existing
buildings in the College precincts, and in many ways the most
interesting, not only as regards the books which it contains, but
the very admirable and satisfactory structure in which the volumes
are so worthily housed, a full and detailed account will be found
in Chapter VII.
[Illustration: VIEW IN THE COLLEGE PARK--LIBRARY--ENGINEERING
SCHOOL.]
ST. PATRICK’S WELL LANE--THE COLLEGE PARK.
In the year 1688, a most interesting monument of antiquity in
Dublin was demolished to make way for City improvements. The old
Danish _Thingmote_, or Parliament Hill, an artificial mound some
forty feet high, that stood on the spot now partially occupied by
the new Ulster Bank, and not a hundred yards from the Provost’s
House, was levelled with the ground.[166] And the earth of the old
mound, as it was removed, was carted away and thrown down in front
of a poor street, St. Patrick’s Well Lane, facing the dreary and
neglected expanse of waste land that is now the College Park. The
street so widened and levelled was called--in honour of William
of Orange Nassau, Protestant King of England--Nassau Street. The
College authorities soon afterwards built a high brick wall on the
boundary between the City and the College property; and the level
of the street, in consequence of the immense accumulation of added
soil from the _Thingmote_, was left, as it now is, some six feet
higher than that of the College land which adjoins it. The College
Park was first laid out and planted with elm and plane trees in
1722; and in the same year a wall was built on the north-eastern
boundary of the College grounds, with a gateway and lodge for a
porter.[167]
For over a hundred years there was no great change of any kind,
either in the Park or in its surroundings; but in 1842, one of the
greatest improvements that has been made for the last half-century
in the Dublin streets was effected by the College authorities, who
pulled down the ugly brick wall of 1688, and supplied its place by
the present fine granite wall, surmounted by a round coping and
a handsome iron railing, which marks the boundary of the College
Park on the north side of Nassau Street. The stonework is four feet
six inches in height; the railing rises about seven feet higher,
and is the work of the once well-known firm of William Turner
& Co. And about the time this most admirable change was made,
Nassau Street was still further improved by the demolition of some
houses and shops, of which the leases fell in to the College, at
the north-west corner of the street, and a considerable slice of
ground was given up by the College to the City to widen and improve
the street. The new stables--of fine cut granite--attached to the
Provost’s House were erected at the same time. Nassau Street,
thus raised, as it were, by favour of the University, from a
third-rate to a first-rate street, became and continued for some
considerable time to be the chosen afternoon resort of fashionable
Dublin. But of late, although the street has been greatly improved
by new buildings and high-class shops, it is neglected by the
smart pleasure-seekers, who have to a great extent abandoned the
town for more attractive residences in the suburbs. And a place of
public meeting--like Hyde Park or the Boulevards, the Prater or the
Prado, the Corso or the Rambla, Unter den Linden or even “Under the
Trees”--is one of the most marked wants of modern social Dublin.
Under the granite wall and railings of 1842, just within the
Fellows’ Garden, and opposite the northern end of Dawson Street,
is the old Holy Well of St. Patrick, a sacred spring from which
St. Patrick’s Well Lane took its earlier name; now neglected and
ill-cared for, but once the most celebrated holy well in Dublin,
and the resort of numerous pilgrims and devotees from all parts of
Ireland. At the extreme south-east corner of the College precincts,
opening on to Lincoln Place, is a handsome granite gateway, with
large iron gates and a porter’s lodge in cut stone, erected in
1855, in place of a mean doorway familiarly known as “The Hole in
the Wall.” This entrance, which affords the most convenient access
to all Collegians residing in the east and south-east, at present
the more fashionable quarters of the town, is of special advantage
to the Medical students, whose Lecture Rooms and Laboratories
are situated just inside the gate. When these were completed in
1888, the ground between them and the gate was newly laid out and
planted. And it is proposed, on the falling in of the leases of
the row of houses between the Lincoln Place gate and the east end
of the granite wall and railings in Nassau Street, to pull down
the houses and shops, and continue the railings up to the gate
in Lincoln Place, a distance of 120 yards; an improvement which
will be equally great both to the College and the adjacent City
property. One of the most striking views of the College grounds is
from the windows of Kildare Street Club, the finest house in Nassau
Street, and itself a striking object as seen from the College Park.
THE MEDICAL SCHOOL.
[Illustration: THE MEDICAL SCHOOL.]
The Medical School, which is shown in the illustration on p. 229,
was built in 1886, from the designs of Mr. J. M‘Curdy (who died in
that year), developed by Mr. Thomas Drew, under whose supervision
the entire work was carried out. The site is one of the finest,
and would be, perhaps, the finest in the College, were it not for
the ugly back view of a building in dull grey cement, put up for
the accommodation of the Cricket Club, that shuts off the view of
and from the College Park. The Medical School has a frontage of
140 feet to the west, and two wings, extending 150 feet eastward,
at right angles to the façade. The whole of this 440 feet is in
fine cut granite. The main door is in the centre of the principal
elevation, and three tiers of fourteen windows, those in the
first and third stories being square, those in the second story
round-headed, are disposed in pairs, without ornamentation or
special architectural feature of any kind. Yet the building, if
somewhat severe in character, is appropriate to the objects for
which it is destined, and is, as a whole, entirely satisfactory.
For six feet from the ground the masonry is of rustic ashlar; from
thence to the eaves, fine cut granite. Behind the building, and
enclosed by the wings, is a yard containing the pumping engine, by
which the Park is kept dry even in the wettest weather. The water
is drained into a reservoir, and pumped from thence through iron
pipes into the river Liffey, which at low tide only is some feet
below the College Park. In comparatively recent times all this
part of the grounds was swampy, and in wet winters impassable.
And that part of the Park between the Museum and the New Square
is still called the Wilderness. To the north of the yard of the
Medical School, and separated by six feet from the north wing of
the Museum, is the Histological Laboratory, built in 1880. It is
85 feet long by 30 feet broad, with two tiers of seven windows,
alternately square and round headed, looking to the north.
[Illustration: THE MUSEUM (TENNIS COURT).]
THE ANATOMICAL MUSEUM.
The Anatomical Museum, built in 1875-6 from the design of Mr. J.
M‘Curdy, for a long time architect to the College, is placed some
seventy feet to the north of the Medical School, has a façade
of 150 feet looking west, and a depth of forty-five feet. It is
constructed of cut granite, without ornament or special features.
Two doors and nine windows on the ground floor are surmounted by
eleven windows on the upper story, all square, simple, solid, and
harmonious. In this building are found the Museum collections
both of Anatomy and of Natural History, and on the ground floor
is the Anthropometric Laboratory, where measurements and records
are taken on a somewhat more extended plan than that introduced by
Captain Francis Galton at South Kensington. And a metric system of
notation has been adopted similar to that in use on the Continent
of Europe, especially in Paris, and lately introduced into the
Anthropometric Department of the Military Medical School at
Washington.
[Illustration: THE DISSECTING ROOM.]
The Anatomical School presents the great advantage of having all
its Lecture Rooms and Laboratories on the ground floor.
The Dissecting Room is large, well lighted, and well ventilated--so
spacious and so well arranged that three hundred students can work
at the same time without inconvenience. It is in every respect well
suited for the work that is carried on, and presents none of that
dinginess so generally characteristic of rooms of the kind. It is
lighted by the electric light. The floor is of oak parquet. Round
the walls are a series of cases, in which are placed permanent
typical specimens, which are largely used by the students. Every
inch of wall space above these cases is made use of for framed
plates and diagrams appropriate to the subjects, and in the centre
of the room on lofty pedestals stand two statues, the Venus of
Milo and the Boxer, bearing witness to the fact that Anatomy has
artistic as well as medical aspects.
The Bone Room and the Lecture Theatre are entered directly from
the Dissecting Room. The Bone Room is a lofty room surrounded by
a gallery. On the floor, osteological specimens are arranged in
revolving cases on long narrow tables. Few anatomical departments
can boast of so numerous and so varied an assortment of teaching
preparations. The gallery is chiefly devoted to specimens which
bear upon the applications of anatomy to the practice of medicine.
It is here also that are displayed (1) the large series of
models prepared in the department to illustrate cerebral growth
and the cranio-cerebral topography of the child and the adult;
(2) the series of models representing the anatomy of inguinal
hernia, also prepared in the department; (3) the mesial sections
of the four anthropoid apes--gorilla, chimpanzee, orang, and
gibbon--preparations which are unique. The Theatre is capable of
seating 400 students. It is not handsome; but it is comfortable
and, most important of all, its acoustic property admirably well
adapted for the purpose for which it was designed. There are also a
Museum of Surgical and Medical Pathology, and one of Materia Medica.
THE CHEMICAL SCHOOL.
The Chemical Department adjoins the Medical School, and is in the
southern part of the buildings, just within the Lincoln Place
gate of Trinity College. The new Lecture Theatre of the School is
situated between two groups of Laboratories, and is fitted with all
modern appliances for lecture-illustration in the various branches
of Chemical Science. The seats are numbered, and are assigned in
the order of entry for the different courses of lectures. Behind
the Lecture Theatre is a large Demonstration Room, fitted with
Assay and Cupelling furnaces and other apparatus, and beyond
are the Laboratories for Qualitative Analysis and Preparation.
These consist of four lofty and well-ventilated rooms, capable
of accommodating 112 students, who work at compartments fully
provided with the necessary apparatus tests and materials. Off the
larger room of this series are (1) a special sulphuretted-hydrogen
chamber, with separate ventilation, (2) a general store, and (3)
cases of apparatus used at lectures. These Laboratories, as well
as the Lecture Theatre and other rooms, are heated by means of hot
water pipes, and the special ventilation required for carrying off
fumes, &c., from the different compartments is obtained by the
powerful draught of a chimney stack, sixty feet high, connected
with the furnace of the heating apparatus. The Quantitative and
Research Laboratories and their related rooms are at the east front
of the new buildings. The main Laboratory is a fine room, provided
with all modern appliances, and adjoining it are special rooms for
(_a_) Balances and other instruments of precision, together with
the special apparatus required for Quantitative Analysis; (_b_)
for Organic Analysis; (_c_) for Pressure Tube work; (_d_) for Gas
and Water Analysis, and for Spectrum Analysis. In addition to all
these there is a Chemical Museum, containing a great variety of
specimens for use at lectures, and everything that is required
for the prosecution of the various researches conducted in the
School. The Professor’s Rooms and private Laboratory are on the
floor immediately above the Quantitative Laboratory, and in direct
communication with all the departments.[168]
[Illustration: THE PRINTING OFFICE.]
[Illustration: PULPIT NOW IN DINING HALL, ONCE IN OLD CHAPEL.]
FOOTNOTES:
[139] Stubbs’ _History of the University of Dublin_, pp. 5, 6.
[140] Stubbs, _op. cit._ p. 7.
[141] Stubbs, _op. cit._ pp. 11, 12.
[142] Derived by Gilbert from a Hoge--a small sepulchral mound.
[143] Hoggen Green was long the Tyburn of Dublin.--Gilbert, iii. 3.
[144] The _Ampelopsis veitchii_ planted on the eastern front in
1887 by G. L. C. & E. P. W., as seen in summer and autumn, has
done wonders for the New Square. The hawthorns in every quadrangle
brighten the whole face of the College in early summer.
[145] He began life as a house carpenter.
[146] There are in Dublin, at the present day, accomplished
architects who have done, and are doing, good work both within and
without the College walls. It is obvious that these remarks have no
application nor reference to them, save in so far that even their
best work has in it nothing peculiarly Irish.
[147] Letter to Montagu, May 18th, 1748.
[148] _Graphic_, May 29th, 1886.
[149] Milizia: _Lives of Architects_, p. 295.
[150] I am obliged to Mr. George Cook, the manager of the
Burlington Hotel, for this information, and for afterwards showing
me over the house.
[151] The Old Square of 1685 occupied apparently the site of two
yet older quadrangles.
[152] “It is an accursed thing not to die.” This strange saying
will be found in Epictetus, Diss. II. VI. 12, where the philosopher
adds that man, like corn, having once been sown, must look forward
with satisfaction to the harvest when he shall also be reaped. The
slave moralist may perhaps have met St. Paul at Rome.
[153] These are modern pictures of no value or interest. There is
an authentic and most interesting portrait of Bishop Berkeley in
the Common Room.
[154] Born 1665; died 1745.
[155] Vigo Street, built at this time, takes its name from this
most popular victory.
[156] Sir Robert Stewart, Mus. Doc., Professor of Music in the
University, and Organist of the College Chapel, to whom my best
thanks are due, not only for this information, but for many details
as to the Chapel Organ kindly communicated in MS.
[157] The clapper weighs 2 cwt. 13 lbs., and the total cost was
£230.
[158] The belfry stage is not of sufficient size to admit of
the swinging of so great a bell as that of the College; it is
accordingly rung by chiming only.
[159] One corner, indeed, had to be strengthened about the middle
of the present century.
[160] The clock was made by Chancellor in the year 1846; it has a
duplex escapement, and strikes the hours and half-hours. It was
repaired and added to by Dobbyn in 1870.
[161] See _Notes and Queries_, I., vii., 428.
[162] This portrait was purchased by Lord Iveagh at Messrs.
Christie & Manson’s, at a sale of some of the present Marquess of
Ely’s pictures, in 1891.
[163] Cork, Midleton, Armagh, Kilkenny, Clare, and Connemara are
all represented.
[164] Now Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge.
[165] _Historical Guide to Dublin_, Rev. G. N. Wright, 1821.
[166] St. Andrew’s Church appears in old documents as _Parochia
Sancti Andrea de Thengmothe_.
[167] Stubbs: _History of the University of Dublin_, p. 145.
[168] A Grace passed the Senate of the University on the 20th
of June, 1890, authorising admission to the degree of Doctor
in Science of those who shall have been engaged in Scientific
Investigation for not less than three years after graduating in
Arts, and published results of independent work tending to the
advancement of any branch of Science, and judged of sufficient
merit by the Provost and Senior Fellows. Graduates of Trinity
College who desire to devote themselves to the pursuit of any
branch of Science can therefore now obtain a Scientific Degree on
the ground of research. Facilities are afforded in the various
schools for those who desire to acquire experience in conducting
scientific researches, either by assisting in carrying out
investigations actually in progress, working independently, or
pursuing inquiries arising out of those recently conducted in the
Schools.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]
CHAPTER IX.
DISTINGUISHED GRADUATES.
_Felix prole virum._--VIRGIL.
The close of the sixteenth century was a brilliant period in the
history of the English people. Three years before the measure
for the foundation in Dublin of a College “whereby knowledge and
civility might be increased” passed the Great Seal, the “Invincible
Armada” had suffered disastrous defeat at the hands of English
seamen. The Queen, who had “confirmed to her people that pillar of
liberty, a free press,” had shown herself possessed of a deeper
sympathy with her subjects than enemies were willing to allow her,
and the determined spirit of her ancestors--determined whether
in the good cause or the bad--had been displayed at a crisis of
supreme gravity. It was a good omen for the future of the “College
of the Holy and Undivided Trinity,” that it could write beneath the
portrait of this sovereign, “_Hujusce Collegii Fundatrix._”
The history of the University founded by Elizabeth is the history
of the greatest institution in this country, which, amidst so much
failure, has been a permanent and indisputable success. During
the dark ages of Ireland’s confusion and misery, the lamp of
learning and culture was here kept alight. No small achievement
will this seem in the eyes of those to whom the social and
political condition of the country, during the two hundred years
which followed the granting of the Charter to the “mother of a
University” in Dublin, are even superficially known.
In 1591, the meadow land and orchards of the Monastery of All
Hallows, near the city, which had become the property of the
Corporation upon the dissolution of all such establishments
by Henry VIII., were transferred to the Provost and Fellows
appointed under the Royal Seal; and where, fifty years before, the
brotherhood of Prior and Monks had passed their days in the quiet
seclusion of a life apart from the busy world of ambitious men,
there now began the quick and vivid play of thought and feeling
which mark a University in which the minds of the future leaders of
the people are moulded and exercised. The more prominent names in
the list of the graduates of Elizabeth’s College are abundant proof
of the paramount position of influence from the first maintained
by it in every department of the public life of the country, and
the importance of its work in training the men who have been in
the van of progress in culture and science, and among the leaders
of every political movement in Ireland; many of them, too, in
the wider field offered by England, and, in these later days, in
the still wider field of the colonies and dependencies under the
Crown. The traditions and prestige attached to such an institution
are inalienable, and it will indeed be strange if any statesman
attempt, as is sometimes apprehended, the impossible task of
disturbing or transferring them. The greater part of the history of
Ireland since the opening of the seventeenth century can be read in
the more public lives of the alumni of Trinity College.
Oxford, it is said, has been the University of great movements;
Cambridge, of great men. Genius indeed is not the outcome or
resultant of academic life and traditions, while intellectual and
social movements may in a measure be traced to such sources. Thus
may Oxford fairly claim for herself influences more wide-reaching
than her sister, although she cannot boast an equally distinguished
family. It must indeed be remembered that genius is resentful of
restrictions, and the debt acknowledged to any University by its
greatest sons is usually but a limited one. To her poets, Landor
and Shelley, Oxford was a harsh stepmother, and many a young man,
afterwards to be famous, left the banks of Cam without gratitude
and without regret. Nevertheless, a distinctive type of culture,
often of directing power, even though resisted, prevails at every
great centre of learning. If the dignity of a seat of learning
is to be determined by the intellectual splendour of the names
associated with it, Oxford must give place to Dublin as well as to
Cambridge. There is no Oxonian to rank with Swift or Burke.
But all such comparisons are idle; the Irish sister of the two
great English Universities has had a far different career, and
her type of culture is essentially distinctive, and not that of
another. Oxford, “the home of lost causes and forsaken beliefs
and impossible loyalties,” has a charm all her own. The old Irish
College does not lie, like that “Queen of Romance, steeped in
sentiment, and whispering from her towers the last enchantments of
the middle ages.” To sentiment she has ever been a stranger, and
she lies at the heart of a metropolis. But perhaps the atmosphere
of sentiment is not compatible with that of reason, and Dublin has
been the home of intellectual sanity. Unadorned by creeper or “ivy
serpentine,” no quaint windows or secluded cloisters bring to the
thoughtful student of “Old Trinity” visions of the monks of the
Monastery of All Saints; and no one who knows her history, or has
breathed her keen disillusionising air, would conceive as possible
the fostering of an intellectualism such as that of Newman under
the shadow of her Greek porticoes. Like her architecture, the mind
of the University of Dublin has been more Greek than that of her
English sisters. The spirit of Plato dwelt in Berkeley as it never
could have done in a thinker educated in a University dominated
by the methods of Bacon. In Edmund Burke the philosophical
statesmanship of the Athenian Republic was revived as the “last
enchantments of the middle ages,” with all their witchery, could
never have revived it. Dublin has never given herself over to the
idols of the forum or the market-place, nor worshipped at the
shrine of utilitarian philosophies. She has not swung incense in
the chapel of Hobbes or Herbert Spencer, nor bowed the knee to a
dictator in the Vatican of science. She has betrayed as little
enthusiasm for the cause of the Stuarts as for that of Pusey and
Keble. When we call to mind her position in the heart of a country
misunderstood and misgoverned for centuries, we cannot but marvel
that she has so serenely kept the _via media_ between political,
philosophical, and social extremes. At once less conservative
and less radical than her sisters, a dry intellectual light has
been her guide. It may be that the native humour of the soil has
preserved her from the follies of dogmatism--ecclesiastical,
scientific, political, or literary,--and equally so from frenzied
devotion to hopeless causes or extravagant theories. Stranger to
sentiment, and no “Queen of Romance,” I cannot think that an enemy
could deny beauty to the solemn stateliness of her quadrangles. In
the quiet of moonlit nights, or when the summer sun shines upon the
grey walls and the green of grass and foliage in her courts and
park, there are few so unimpressionable as to remain insensible
to her dignity and loveliness. But her truest dignity is in the
intellectual honour of her sons.
[Illustration: JACOBUS USSERIUS, ARCHIEPISCOPUS ARMACHANUS, TOTIUS
HIBERNIÆ PRIMAS]
Among the very first batch of graduates in these the infant days
of the College a great personality appears. At the first Public
Commencements held in 1601, on Shrove Tuesday, in St. Patrick’s
Cathedral, “Sir Ussher,” one of the students entered at the first
matriculation examination, was admitted to his Master’s degree.
James Ussher was of a family that had been resident in Ireland
since the time of King John, and on both sides of the house his
ancestors had held important public offices. His grandfather
had been Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, and his uncle,
afterwards Primate of Ireland, while Archdeacon in Dublin had
had much to do with the foundation of the Irish University. “Sir
Ussher” became Fellow and Proctor in due time, and while still
under age was by a faculty ordained Priest and Deacon. His first
recorded visit to England was that upon the errand in which he met
with Sir Thomas Bodley buying books for the Oxford Library which
now bears his name. Two of the greatest Libraries of the United
Kingdom were thus associated in their foundation. The energy and
extraordinary abilities of Ussher were soon very widely recognised,
and he was offered the Provostship in 1609, which position,
however, he declined. On the occasion of his next visit to England,
he bore a letter of recommendation to King James from the Lord
Deputy and Council, it being supposed that the King was prejudiced
against him. The gifts and learning which had made him so
conspicuous a figure in Ireland did not fail to impress the King,
who appointed him Bishop of Meath, “a Bishop of his own making,”
as he said. He preached, while in London, before the Commons and
at St. Margaret’s. During his tenure of the Bishopric he was very
prominent in public affairs, and in 1625 he was raised to the
Primacy. While occupied with the high civil and episcopal duties of
his many offices, he was extending that learning which placed him
at the head of the scholars of the day, and for which he is still
read and honoured. Burnet writes of him as a man “of a most amazing
diligence and exactness, joined with great judgment. Together with
his vast learning, no man had a better soul and a more apostolical
mind. In his conversation he expressed the true simplicity of a
Christian, for passion, pride and self-will, and the love of the
world seemed not so much as in his nature; so that he had all the
innocence of the dove in him. He was certainly one of the greatest
and best men that the age, perhaps the world, has produced.” Selden
spoke of him as “vir summa pictate, judicio singulari, usque ad
miraculum doctus.”
To compass, even in a volume, the bare record of the important
public acts of Ussher while Archbishop of Armagh, would be a
difficult task. He is the towering figure of his time, and seems to
stand as centre to its history, overshadowing both churchmen and
statesmen of ordinary stature, a period which reckoned among its
prominent men educated in Dublin such scholars as Dudley Loftus,
and such antiquarians as Sir James Ware. In 1640 the Primate was
forced by the troubles of the time to go for a sojourn to England,
which proved to be for the rest of his life. He was taken into
the counsels of King Charles about the modification of Episcopal
government such as to satisfy Presbyterians, and propounded a
scheme with that view. From this time he was one of the King’s
confidential advisers, and warned him against the signing of the
Bill of Attainder against Strafford. When he knew that it had
been done, Ussher broke out with “O sir! what have you done? Pray
God your Majesty may never suffer by signing this Bill!” He bore
the King’s last messages to Strafford, and attended him in prison
and to the scaffold, bearing back the report of his execution to
Charles.
At this period of his life, an unhappy and stormy one, he had many
invitations from abroad; among others, from Cardinal Richelieu,
who offered him a pension and free exercise of his religion in
France. After the manner of the Greek heroes, these two princes
of the Church interchanged gifts, the Cardinal sending Ussher a
gold medal, and the Primate, in return, two Irish-greyhounds. The
invitation to settle in France was renewed by the Queen Regent,
Anne of Austria; but this, among other offers, such as that of a
Chair in the University of Leyden, he declined. During the civil
war his experiences were most unhappy, and although reverenced
by the chiefs of the Parliamentary party as a man of astonishing
genius and unswerving rectitude, his property was frequently
plundered, and his life, if not actually endangered, rendered
hopeless and miserable by the uncertainties and distress of his
condition. He suffered, indeed, at the hands of the Government;
for when summoned to the Assembly of Divines at Westminster
by Parliament, he declined to present himself, and was, as a
consequence, denounced, and his library confiscated; but by the
help of influential friends it was restored to him. Ussher’s
learning was so wide and deep, especially in theology, that in
many instances the researches and discoveries of modern scholars
have only served to confirm his judgments. A striking example
of his acumen is to be found in his edition of Ignatius and
Polycarp. Observing that three English writers of the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries cite Ignatius in a different form from
what was then known, but agreeing with citations made by Eusebius
and others, he was led to divine the existence of copies of the
different form in England. Search was accordingly made, and his
forecast was verified by the discovery of two Latin versions--one
in Caius College, Cambridge, while a Greek text corresponding was
recovered in Florence. This is the text of Ignatius now generally
received, and has recently been established as the true text, as
against that current before Ussher’s time, by the late Bishop
Lightfoot, who speaks of this work as “showing not only marvellous
erudition, but also the highest critical genius.” The great
Primate’s sagacity, not only in matters of scholarship but in
matters of State, was regarded in his own day as approaching that
of inspiration, and a volume of his predictions respecting public
affairs was actually published.
The Parliament relented towards Ussher so far as to vote him a
pension in his later years, which was, however, but irregularly
paid. The death of his royal master was a great blow to Ussher, and
he ever after kept the momentous day of execution as a fast. A few
years before his death he published his _Old Testament Chronology_,
whence is taken the Table commonly inserted in Bibles. The great
Protector sent for him, treated him with marked courtesy, and was
indeed almost persuaded by him to grant a certain toleration to
the Episcopal worship, but finally refused any such boon to his
“implacable enemies;” showing himself, as Ussher tersely described
him, a man possessed of “intestina non viscera.” At his death the
honours of a public funeral were ordered by Cromwell, who, with all
his sternness against his foes, could not but reverence the moral
grandeur of the man; and the service of his own church was read
over the grave of the greatest churchman of his time, in the chapel
of St. Erasmus.
While Dodwell, that prolific author, whose name is also connected
with the Camden Professorship bestowed on him by the University
of Oxford, was a Fellow of Trinity lecturing in logic, his most
brilliant pupil, soon to become a friend, was William King. Among
his contemporaries several names of note occur in the College
records--Tate and Brady; Dillon, Earl of Roscommon; Leslie,
Denham, Peter Browne, Robert Boyle, and Wilson, the author of
_Sacra Privata_. But King has claims to more than passing notice.
A churchman of whom Swift, a warm admirer, could write as follows,
can have been no common man--“He spends his time in the practice
of all the virtues that can become public or private life. So
excellent a person may justly be reckoned among the greatest and
most learned prelates of this age.”
[Illustration: The most Reverend Father in GOD William King D.D.]
King was of a Scotch Presbyterian family, his father having
settled in Ulster after his excommunication for refusal to sign
the Covenant. He betrayed in his infant years an aversion to
the mechanical lessons of his schoolmistress, and suffered much
whipping as a consequence. The art of reading came upon him later
quite as a surprise, as he suddenly found himself able to make
sense of the combinations of letters which had baffled him under
the tuition of an orthodox school _régime_. During his career in
College he lived as a Spartan. “I scarce had twenty pounds,” he
tells us in an unpublished autograph memoir preserved in Armagh
Diocesan Library, “in all the six years I spent in College, save
from the College (Scholarship). Yet herein do I acknowledge
God’s providence that I was able to appear _nearly_ all that
time decently drest and sufficiently fed.” Although without
definite religious opinions, since as a child he had received no
instruction, by study and conversation with men of weight and
learning in the University he came to have that settled faith which
drew him to the ministry of the Church, and remained with him all
through life. Thus King’s debt to Trinity College was a large one;
he owed to her not only the intellectual but the spiritual training
which determined his life and character. When ordained Priest, he
was appointed Chaplain to the Archbishop of Tuam. The change from
the narrow fare of his life in College to that of the Palace, where
a “dinner of sixteen dishes and a supper of twelve, with abundant
variety of wines and other generous liquors,” were the usual diet,
affected his health. “The issue was, that before I had begun to
dream of ill effects,” he says quaintly, “I was taken with the
gout.”
Archbishop Parker, who had formed a high estimate of King’s powers,
appointed him, soon after his own translation to Dublin, to the
Chancellorship of St. Patrick’s, at that juncture of affairs when
the Duke of York, heir-presumptive to the Crown, declared himself
a Roman Catholic. In 1683 he was sent to Tunbridge Wells to try a
course of the waters for his health, and fell into acquaintance
with many political persons. Party spirit was then running very
high, and considerable excitement prevailed over the revocation
of the charters of certain cities. He felt it to be his duty to
support the King, so that he might not be driven to seek support
from the unprincipled politicians of the day. This support was,
however, only conditional upon rational and legal action on the
King’s part. When the crisis came in the next reign, and it was
imperative that some side should be taken in the contest between
James and the Prince of Orange, King came to the conclusion that
in the illegal and unjustifiable action of James there was ample
reason for the transference of his allegiance to the champion of
the Protestant party.
At this time, when the confusion and apprehensions of the clergy
drove many of them to England for refuge, the affairs of the Church
in Ireland were wholly managed by King and Bishop Dopping, an
ex-Fellow of Trinity. Archbishop Marsh, indeed, left everything
in the hands of King as his commissary, and the latter’s position
became one of great responsibility and danger. With many others, he
was thrown into prison in Dublin Castle, and, although released in
a few months, was again in the following year imprisoned, until the
victory of the Boyne set him at liberty. As Dean of St. Patrick’s
he preached at a thanksgiving service for the victory in his
Cathedral, at which the King was present; and when it was told his
Majesty, in answer to enquiry, that the preacher’s name was William
King, he remarked, smiling, that their names were both alike--King
William and William King. On his appointment to the Bishopric of
Derry, which followed close upon the Revolution, he showed his
great administrative abilities in the government of the See, which
had been terribly impoverished by the war. As he had been the first
to declare in public speech to which king his allegiance was due,
so was he the first author of a history of the time, _State of the
Protestants in Ireland_, in which he vindicated the lawfulness
of William’s interposition between James and his subjects; a
book spoken of by Burnet as “a copious history of the government
of Ireland during the reign, which is so well received, and so
universally acknowledged to be as truly as it is fairly written,
that I refer my readers to the account of these matters which is
fully and faithfully given by that learned and zealous prelate.”
As Archbishop of Dublin, King proved himself statesman no less
than prelate, as the history of the times clearly evidence. When
in his seventy-fifth year, the See of Armagh became vacant. To
Swift, who wrote warmly expressing his hope that King would be
promoted to Armagh, he replied: “Having never asked anything,
I cannot now begin to do so, when I have so near a prospect of
leaving the station in which I am another way.” But there is
little doubt that the appointment of Boulter, an Englishman, was
not acceptable to him, for he received the Primate at his first
visit, seated, with the words--in which the jest did not disguise
their bitterness,--“My Lord, I am sure your Grace will forgive
me, because you know I am too old to rise.” This practice of
importing Englishmen to fill the greater Sees of Ireland prevailed
until a few years ago, and can scarcely be described as other
than gratuitously insulting to the clergy of that Church in this
Country. King was eminently ecclesiastic and prelate, wise, strong,
and masterful, possessed of many of the gifts which go to make up a
great statesman. Not such a scholar as Ussher, he was more fitted
by nature to play a part among living men, although, as his great
work, _De Origine Mali_, proves, he was a subtle thinker no less
than a far-sighted man of action.
[Illustration: (bust of Dr. Delaney)]
Bishops Downes and St. George Ashe and Dr. Delany are among
the prominent Churchmen of this period who were ex-Fellows of
Trinity. This is the Dr. Delany frequently mentioned in Primate
Boulter’s letters, and in the works of Dean Swift. Of the
Scholars of the day, William Molyneux, the philosophical friend
of Locke, was in the first rank. He it was who founded the
Society in Dublin on the plan of the Royal Society in London,
which, although dispersed during the troubles of the war between
James and William, may rightly be considered the parent of the
present Royal Society of Ireland. He represented the University
in Parliament, and was a public man of mark, although by natural
bent of mind a mathematician and philosopher. Against Hobbes he
carried on a controversy in support of Theism. Molyneux wrote
many scientific works of great value, and one political pamphlet
which is historical--_The Case of Ireland’s being bound by Acts of
Parliament made in England_.
[Illustration: MOLYNEUX.]
Like his own Gulliver among the Liliputians, the gigantic figure of
Swift dominates his age. There is no man in history whose character
and life is a more fascinating study, or whose personality awakens
such powerful and varied emotions. We are awed by the splendour
of the intellectual achievement which created and peopled a
new world in the travels of _Gulliver_, which dominated from
Laracor Parsonage the counsels of statesmen and the fortunes of
governments, and which could, in the _Drapier’s Letters_, fan the
imagination of a people to the white heat of revolutionary action.
We turn to his private life and read his letters, and awe gives
place to pity, not far removed from affection, for the proud heart,
sore with all unutterable and measureless desires, and of gentlest
tenderness to a simple girl. Too proud to be vain; too conscious
of the vanities of the things of ambition to be ambitious; too
constant and open a friend to care for the friendships of the
shallow or conceited--in short, too consummate master of the world
to care for the things of the world, like Alexander, despair took
hold on him because the inexorable limits of time and space left
him without a sphere worthy the exercise of the power he felt
within him. There was something more than misanthropy in the man
to whom the gentle Addison, in sending a copy of his _Travels
in Italy_, could write:--“To Jonathan Swift, the most agreeable
companion, the truest friend, and the greatest genius of his age,
this work is presented by his most humble servant, the author.”
[Illustration: (bust of Dean Swift)]
There was little in the eighteenth century of spiritual fervour or
moral enthusiasm. The mental fashion of the times was a cynical
rationalism, of no depth, because unsupported by any genuine desire
for truth. Swift, while he hated the shallowness of the prevailing
mood of mind, caught the contagion, and could not altogether shake
himself free from its effects, but became in his far more honest
and more terrible cynicism profoundly contemptuous of the cynics.
Stella’s smile alone, like a ray of light, ever broke the leaden
grey of the sky over his head. When that star faded, there was
nothing left for which to live, “the long day’s work was done,” and
death was a friend leading to a rest--
“Ubi saeva indignatio
Cor ulterius lacerare nequit.”
Swift--in name ecclesiastic, in reality statesman and leader of
men--marks the transition period from churchmen to poets, orators,
and men of letters, in the remarkable grouping of the great names
among the graduates of Dublin. Boswell records Johnson’s estimate
of three of the “Irish clergy” of whom I have spoken. “Swift,” said
he, “was a man of great parts, and the instrument of much good to
his country; Berkeley was a profound scholar, as well as a man of
fine imagination; but Ussher,” he said, “was the great luminary of
the Irish Church, and a greater no Church could boast of--at least
in modern times.”
[Illustration: Thomas Southerne Esq^r.]
The great churchmen of the early years of the University were
followed by the great dramatists. Save to the faithful in matters
of literature, the name of Southerne, like that of many of his
predecessors of the age of Elizabeth, is a name alone--“stat
nominis umbra,”--and that although he counted Gray and Dryden among
his admirers, and was the first author whose plays were honoured
by a second and third night of representation, Shakespeare himself
not excepted. In Southerne is to be found the last flicker of the
passion and fervour of the great dramatic period of our literature.
As we read, we are startled here and there by the “gusto of the
Elizabethan voice,” the unmistakable tone which has “somewhat
spoiled our taste for the twitterings” of modern verse. The great
actress still lives, Helen Faucit, Lady Martin, whose impersonation
of Isabella in the “Fatal Marriage” is vividly remembered by our
older playgoers as one of the most powerful of her parts. But we of
this generation can know nothing of Southerne save in the study. To
the best known of his plays a place of unique honour belongs. The
poet is ever foremost in the holy cause of freedom, and “Oroonoko”
is the first work in English which denounced the slave trade. The
story of the tragedy is said to be literally true down to the
minutest details. Much court was paid to this “Victor in Drama” in
his old age; and his person, no less than his reputation, seems
to have demanded it, for he was “of grave and venerable aspect,
accustomed to dress in black, with silver sword and silver locks.”
To him, on his 81st birthday, Pope wrote:--
“Resigned to live, prepared to die,
With not one sin but poetry;
This day Time’s fair account has run
Without a blot to eighty-one.
Kind Boyle before his poet lays
A table with a cloth of bays,
And Ireland, mother of sweet singers,
Presents her harp still to his fingers.”
In the Dublin class-rooms two of the comic dramatists of the
Restoration obtained their scholarship. The intellectual splendour
of William Congreve did not more indisputably place him at the
head of that coterie of letters than his learning and culture
made him the most courted gentleman of the period--“the splendid
Phœbus Apollo of the Mall.” “His learning,” says Macaulay, “does
great honour to his instructors. From his writings, it appears
not only that he was well acquainted with Latin literature, but
that his knowledge of the Greek poets was such as was not in his
time common, even in a College.” For those who feel with Charles
Lamb, when he says, speaking of the comedy of the last century--“I
confess, for myself, I am glad for a season to take an airing
beyond the diocese of the strict conscience,” Congreve must always
remain prince of wits. He is as absolute master of his domain as
Shakespeare of his. We do not now rank him, as Dryden and Johnson
did, with the world’s master-mind--
“ ... Heaven, that but once was prodigal before,
To Shakespeare gave as much, she could not give him more;”
but we cannot refuse him an absolute supremacy in the narrower
sphere of his genius, Congreve’s laurels were all reaped at the
age of thirty. The “Old Bachelor” was produced when the author
was but twenty-three, and that most perfect of English comedies
of manners, “Love for Love,” when he was twenty-five. No such
dialogue, for brilliancy, subtlety, intellectual finish, and
flavour, was ever before heard. We who read cannot feel surprised
that its sparkle should have dazzled the critics into the language
of exaggerated panegyric. The “Mourning Bride” was the only essay
in tragedy made by the man who, in Voltaire’s words, “raised the
glory of comedy to a greater height than any English writer before
or since.” Such a genius as Congreve could not fail absolutely, and
though most of us know it only in its first line--
“Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast;”
or perhaps by the passage which Johnson overpraised as “the most
poetical passage from the whole mass of English poetry,” beginning--
“How reverend is the face of this tall pile,”--
the “Mourning Bride” is a _tour de force_ in dramatic art.
[Illustration: M^r William Congreve.]
Congreve’s career is a striking contrast to that proverbially
assigned by fortune to the man of letters. Patronage from rival
ministers placed him in various sinecure offices, and he died
possessed of a large fortune. His funeral was that of a Prince. His
body lay in state in the Jerusalem Chamber, and the greatest Peers
of England were the bearers of the pall.
Farquhar’s career was less happy than that of Congreve, if indeed
success be happiness. The genial Irish spirit of the gallant
gentleman could not carry his life beyond its thirtieth year.
Over-exertion, necessitated by the impecuniosity inevitable
to a nature akin to Goldsmith’s, undermined his health, and,
like many another, in seeking to save his life he lost it. To
Wilks, the actor, he wrote in a characteristic vein during his
last illness:--“Dear Bob, I have not anything to leave thee
to perpetuate my memory but two helpless girls. Look upon them
sometimes, and think of him that was, to the last moment of his
life, thine, George Farquhar.”
In the “Beaux’ Stratagem” and the “Recruiting Officer,” there is
far less of the prurient indecency characterising the period than
in the comedies of any other member of the famous group. Farquhar’s
broad humour resembles that of Chaucer and Shakespeare; it bears no
relation to that of Wycherley. A gentleman of letters, he carried
with him into his plays the happy lovable disposition of the land
of his birth, and the gay indifference to fortune’s buffets of the
military adventurer. “He was becoming gayer and gayer,” said Leigh
Hunt, “when death, in the shape of a sore anxiety, called him away
as if from a pleasant party, and left the house ringing with his
jest.”
Among the poets patronised by Frederick, Prince of Wales, at the
beginning of the eighteenth century was Henry Brooke, afterwards
better known as a novelist by his _Fool of Quality_, published in
the same year as the now famous _Vicar of Wakefield_. Brooke, in a
remarkable poem entitled “Universal Beauty,” wherein every aspect
of Nature is described with scientific exactness, anticipating the
manner of Darwin in the “Loves of the Plants,” gave promise of a
poetic future and fame to which he never attained. In early life
a friend of Swift, Pope, and Chesterfield, as a man of letters he
was widely known and respected for his public spirit and generous
disposition, as well as for the high merit of his work.
Ireland has never produced a more truly original poet than Thomas
Parnell, the author of “The Hermit.” After he had acquired in
Trinity College the classical training which, in the estimation of
Goldsmith, placed him among the most elegant scholars of the day,
a country parsonage received him into an oblivion which would have
been final but for the kindly encouragement of Swift and Pope.
So modest and diffident a man could never have emerged from the
obscurity of his position in life unaided by some helping hand.
As it was, his poems were not published, except in a posthumous
edition by his great contemporary last mentioned. Although unable
wholly to effect escape from the influences of the artificial
school of the poetry of the so-called Augustan age, there is more
real feeling naturally expressed, more genuine poetic sweetness,
in Parnell’s “Hymn to Contentment,” or his “Night Piece on Death,”
than in any other verse of his time. Without Pope’s incisive
vigour or precision, he sounds a note more pure and exquisite, a
note which appeals to the modern lover of poetry as Pope’s keen
intelligence and perfection of phrase can never do.
[Illustration: Berkeley.]
At Kilkenny School, the Eton of Ireland, where Congreve and
Swift had also been pupils, George Berkeley received his early
education _sub ferula_ a Dr. Hinton. At the age of fifteen he
entered Trinity, and soon after became Scholar and Fellow of the
house. Mathematics chiefly occupied the attention of the more
eminent scholars of the day, but the larger problems claimed
Berkeley’s allegiance. The philosophical issues raised by Locke and
Malebranche had given a new impulse to the study of metaphysics,
now emancipated from the fetters of scholasticism. Dublin was
abreast of the thought of the time, for Locke’s _Essay_ was adopted
as a text-book immediately on its publication, and is still a part
of the course in Logics. On accepting the Deanery of Derry in
1724, Berkeley resigned all his College offices, but before that
time his best known work had been done. _The New Theory of Vision_
and _The Principles of Human Knowledge_ are the direct outcome of
his thought while a Junior Fellow of Trinity. The originality of
Berkeley’s mind was equalled by its purity. The “good Berkeley,”
as Kant calls him, charmed, as some rare spirits have the power to
charm society which cared nothing for his theories, no less than
philosophical friends and foes. To him the satiric vivisector Pope
ascribed “every virtue under Heaven;” and Swift, misanthropist and
scorner of friendship, made him a confidential friend. In some
men, as has often been remarked, there resides a nameless power,
the effluence of a character at once strong and good. No less
a philosopher in life than in theory, no word of bitterness has
ever been breathed against one of the fairest fames in history.
In what exquisite words he declined, when Bishop of Cloyne, to
apply for the Archiepiscopal See of Armagh: “I am no man’s rival
or competitor in this matter. I am not in love with feasts, and
crowds, and visits, and late hours, and strange faces, and a hurry
of affairs often insignificant. For my own private satisfaction,
I had rather be master of my time than wear a diadem.” But in the
interest of others he was willing to spend that time. Like every
other idealist thinker, he had his Utopia. “He is an absolute
philosopher,” wrote Swift to Lord Carteret, “with regard to money,
titles, and power, and for three years past has been struck with a
notion of founding a University at Bermudas by a charter from the
Crown.”
On May the 11th, 1726, the Commons voted “That an humble address
be presented to his Majesty, that out of the lands in St.
Christopher’s, yielded by France to Great Britain by the Treaty of
Utrecht, his Majesty would be graciously pleased to make such grant
for the use of the President and Fellows of the College of St. Paul
in Bermuda as his Majesty shall think proper.” The College, though
here named, was never established, but the glow of anticipated
success was the inspiration of prophetic and noble verse--such
verse as Mr. Palgrave tells us is written by thoughtful men who
practise the art but little.
“In happy climes, the seat of innocence,
Where nature guides and virtue rules,
Where men shall not impose for truth and sense
The pedantry of courts and schools;
“There shall be sung another golden age,
The rise of Empire and of Arts,
The good and great inspiring epic rage,
The wisest heads and noblest hearts.
“Not such as Europe breeds in her decay;
Such as she bred when fresh and young,
When heavenly flame did animate her clay,
By future poets shall be sung.
“Westward the course of Empire takes its way;
The four first acts already past,
A fifth shall close the drama with the day;
Time’s noblest offspring is the last.”
Most of the critics have omitted to mention Berkeley among the
stylists, probably because of the subject-matter of his work; but
as a master of language he alone of the philosophers ranks with
Plato. A felicity of style, consisting in perfect naturalness and
perfect fitness in the choice of words, has been a birthright of
great Irishmen. There is perhaps no surer test of delicacy of moral
fibre or of intellectual precision than a refinement of touch in
language, such as that of Goldsmith and Berkeley.
After the disappointment in the matter of the University in
Bermuda, Berkeley devoted himself once more to Philosophy. With
Queen Caroline he was so great a favourite that the royal command
frequently brought him to the Palace; and when through some
official hitch he was disappointed of the Deanery of Down, the
Queen signified her pleasure that, since “they would not suffer Dr.
Berkeley to be a Dean in Ireland, he should be a Bishop,” and in
1734 appointed him to the See of Cloyne.
His letter to the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland shows the large
spirit of charity with which he exercised his episcopal office.
Traditions of his loved and cherished presence still linger about
the Palace of Cloyne, now a ruin; and a beautiful recumbent figure
recently placed in the Cathedral perpetuates his memory there. But
as he advanced in years, feeble in health, and long desirous of
ending his days in a quiet retirement, he made Oxford his choice,
and wrote to the Secretary of State (in 1752) to ask leave to
resign his Bishopric. So unusual a desire as that of voluntary
retirement, involving the loss of the episcopal revenue, led the
King, George II., to enquire who it was that preferred such a
request, and on learning that it was his old friend, Dr. Berkeley,
declared that he should die a Bishop in spite of himself, but might
reside where he pleased. Before he left Ireland, he instituted in
his old College the two medals which bear his name for proficiency
in Greek. In Oxford he died, and was buried in the Cathedral of
Christ Church. Markham, the Archbishop of York, wrote his epitaph:--
“Si Christianus fueris
Si amans patriæ
Utroque nomine gloriari potes
Berkleium vixisse.”
Of the three portraits in our College perhaps none can be regarded
as accurate. Probably the somewhat idealised outlines of the Cloyne
monument convey a true image of Berkeley as his own generation knew
him. “A handsome man,” it is said, “with a countenance full of
meaning and benignity.”
It would be out of place to attempt here to estimate Berkeley’s
philosophical rank. If Hamann’s verdict be just--“Without Berkeley
no Hume, without Hume no Kant,” we owe to the gentle wisdom of our
great countryman a metaphysical debt difficult to overestimate; but
quite apart from the importance of his position in the evolution of
the critical idealism, the figure of that serene thinker, modest,
tender, without reproach, will ever win and hold the admiration and
reverence of all lovers of the beautiful in life and character.
One of Berkeley’s most remarkable Episcopal brethren was Bishop
Clayton, the mover of a motion in the Irish House of Lords
proposing that the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds should be expunged
from the Liturgy of the Church of Ireland--a somewhat bold proposal
on the part of a dignitary of the Church. Mention should also here
be made of Philip Skelton, a contemporary of Clayton, and a scholar
of wide repute.
In 1744 two remarkable boys entered Trinity College, strangely
unlike in disposition and genius, both heirs of Fame, but destined
to reach her temple by very different avenues. Their names were
Edmund Burke and Oliver Goldsmith. The life of the tender-hearted,
vain, improvident, generous, altogether lovable author of the
_Vicar of Wakefield_ and the _Deserted Village_, with all its
vicissitudes, its hours of extravagant luxury, and years of
hopeless poverty, is as well known to most children as are the
works which his exquisite art left the world for “a perpetual feast
of nectared sweets.” There is nothing to tell of him which has not
been told and re-told, read and re-read, from the story of the
young aspirant for ordination presenting himself to his Bishop in
a pair of scarlet breeches, to that simple sentence of Johnson’s,
when he heard of his death and his debts, “Let not his frailties be
remembered; he was a very great man.”
Goldsmith’s College career, like that of Swift, was not a brilliant
one. Set him to turn an ode of Horace into English verse, and you
might count on a version that would surprise the scholars; but
give him a mathematical problem to solve, and he was a disgrace
to his University. It was the same until the end. The mathematics
of life--the simple additions and subtractions--were too much for
him; but those marvellous versions of the tales of his experience
or imagination we still delight in and wonder at. The charm
of that delicate simplicity and ease of style has never been
surpassed. Addison is justly honoured, and as a writer of English
generally appraised higher than Goldsmith; but I cannot think that
the Magdalen Scholar has a lightness of touch or a grace at all
comparable to the poor Sizar of Trinity. In Addison’s best essays
a fastidious critic, while he admires their chastened correctness,
will observe a certain primness, an over-studied perfection of
diction. Addison is a finished artist; but Goldsmith’s freedom
gives greater pleasure, for he wrote under the direct inspiration
of Nature. Posterity, too, has given its inexorable decree in
favour of the Irishman. _Cato_ is forgotten, but _She Stoops to
Conquer_ is with us still. The _Spectator_ is read in the study of
the student of literature, but the _Vicar of Wakefield_ in every
English home. “To be the most beloved of English writers”--as
Thackeray says--“what a title that is for a man!”
The Earl of Mornington, whose more illustrious son, the great Duke,
vanquished the “World’s Victor” at Waterloo, was a contemporary
of Goldsmith, and the first Professor of Music in the University.
Malone, the editor of Shakespeare, and Toplady, the hymn-writer,
graduated about the same time as the Earl, then a _filius nobilis_.
In connection with the name of Edmund Burke, some mention must
be made of the Historical Society, which claims him as its
founder. Its splendid traditions date from the inauguration of
Burke’s Historical Club in 1747. Throughout its chequered career
it has preserved a peculiar pride and independence of spirit,
intolerant of interference on the part even of the authorities
of the University, which not infrequently resulted in serious
disagreement affecting its existence inside the College walls,
and on two occasions led to periods of exile from the University,
during which it found a home in the city. No other debating society
in the world, perhaps, can claim to rank with it as a cradle of
orators. It has been the palæstra of many of the most eloquent
speakers of the English tongue. Besides its founder Burke, Grattan
and Curran, Plunket and Bushe, Sheil and Butt, and many another
master of rhetoric, practised at the debates of the “Historical”
the art which has made Ireland no less famous as mother of orators
than she was formerly as mother of saints. Throughout its career
this Society has given to the Irish Bench and Bar their most
distinguished leaders, and many to England and the dependencies
of the Crown. Three of the members of the present Government were
officers of the Society in their student days; and the most recent
loss it has sustained was by the death of William Connor Magee, the
late Archbishop of York, the first Auditor after its reconstitution
in 1843.
The objects of the Club at its foundation, as appears from the
minutes, were “speaking, reading, writing, and arguing in Morality,
History, Criticism, Politics, and all the useful branches of
Philosophy.” There are many points of interest in the earliest
minute-book of the Society, of which the greater part is in Burke’s
handwriting. A critical discrimination on the part of the members,
remarkable in the light of later history, is recorded in the minute
of April 28, 1747, when “Mr. Burke, for an essay on the Genoese,
was given thanks for the matter, but not for the delivery.” The
Club, consisting of a very few members, grew in numbers until, at
the period in which an Irish Parliament sat in College Green, it
was an assembly of six hundred, many of its prominent members being
also Members of Parliament. An ordinary excuse for the absence of a
speaker from his place seems to have been compulsory attendance in
the Commons. The influence of such a Society upon political opinion
in Ireland was naturally considerable, and the expression of the
revolutionary views of many of its members, such as Emmet and Wolfe
Tone, gave great uneasiness to the Board of the College. It is only
in comparatively recent years that the feeling of suspicion with
which the Society was regarded by the authorities has disappeared,
and it is far indeed from probable that occasion for it will ever
again arise. There are few pages of mere chronicle of names more
potent in arousing patriotic enthusiasm in a lover of Ireland, than
those in the proceedings of this Society which are a record of its
officers.
Although the oratory of Burke signally failed, on the great
occasions upon which it was displayed, to alter the determination
or the policy of the majority of those to whom it was addressed,
he stands by general consent--to make no wider comparison--at the
head of the orators who spoke the English tongue. “Saturated with
ideas” and magnificent in diction as Burke’s oratory was, it is
not as orator merely that he claims the attention of students of
history, nor as “our greatest English prose writer” (as Matthew
Arnold calls him) the attention of students of literature; the
nobility of the man commands a deeper admiration. “We who know Mr.
Burke know that he will be one of the first men in the country,”
said Dr. Johnson, with that magnanimous appreciation of merit so
characteristic of him; and the estimate was not an exaggerated one.
By far the most sagacious and chivalrous statesman of his time, the
high-minded disinterestedness and moral fervour of the man, in an
age such as that in which his lot was cast, give him a far-shining
pre-eminence. Again and again in his utterance rings the splendid
note that stirs the blood as with the sound of a trumpet--the note
which only the brave man to whom belongs the _mens conscia recti_
can dare to utter. Take this: “I know the map of England as well
as the noble Lord or any other person, and I know that the path
that I take is not the way to preferment;” or this, when a purblind
electorate complained of his Parliamentary policy: “I do not here
stand before you accused of venality or of neglect of duty. It
is not said that in the long period of my service I have, in a
single instance, sacrificed the slightest of your interests to my
ambition or to my fortune--No! the charges against me are all of
one kind, that I have pushed the principles of general justice and
benevolence too far--further than a cautious policy would warrant,
and further than the opinions of many would go along with me. In
every accident which may happen through life--in pain, in sorrow,
in depression and distress--I will call to mind this accusation,
and be comforted.” To read the speeches of Burke is, I think,
a liberal education in literature, in ethics, and in political
philosophy. No man can rise from a study of them uninstructed or
unennobled.
To say that in his later years many of the finest qualities of his
head and heart failed him, is but to give trite expression to the
familiar fact that man too has his “winter of pale misfeature.”
There is no figure in the history of English politics at once so
great and so noble as that of Edmund Burke.
As has been remarked, any record of the alumni of Trinity College
must take note of the remarkable grouping of the great names. The
brilliant oratorical group belongs to the period of the history
of Ireland when her circumstances in a special sense called
for the public speaker, assigning to him patriotic duties and
a noble theme. When Dublin became the seat of a Parliament of
real political power, it was the natural ambition of every young
Protestant Irishman of talent to make for himself a name and fame
within its walls. The responsibility of self-government brought
in its train a national enthusiasm and zeal which gave a new life
to the country so long hopelessly misgoverned. For the first time
became possible in Ireland great public service in the cause of
Ireland. In 1746 was born Henry Grattan, the man destined by an
ironical fate to gain by the splendour and force of his advocacy
an honourable independence for the legislature of his country, and
to live long enough to see the whole edifice, raised with so many
fervent prayers and hopes, crumble to pieces, undermined by the
sustained effort of unexampled treachery and fraud in power. In
pathetic words Grattan described, when all was over, his relations
to the Irish Parliament--“I watched by its cradle; I followed it to
the grave.”
[Illustration: EARL OF CLARE.]
The story of the Irish orators of this fascinating epoch has been
told by the most judicial of living historians, Mr. W. E. H. Lecky,
himself, like them, a son of the Dublin _Mater Universitatis_.
As he tells us, however divided political opinion in our day may
be over the vexed question of the government of this island,
“the whole intellect of the country” was bitterly opposed to the
measure for a Union introduced by Lord Castlereagh. The only man
of ability and position in Ireland to whom it was not intolerable
was Fitzgibbon, Earl of Clare. Sheridan, the champion of the
Irish cause in the English Parliament, could scarcely find words
strong enough to express the intensity of his feelings. “I would
have fought for that Irish Parliament,” he said, “up to the knees
in blood.” It may be difficult for the student of history to
understand the fierceness of the opposition with which Grattan,
Flood, and Plunket met the proposal of the English Ministers,
but in the fire and force of their utterances a very sincere
and determined spirit manifests itself. The purity of their
patriotism has never been questioned. Flood, the first of the
Irish orators who rose to prominence in the House, was described
by Grattan as “the most easy and best-tempered man in the world,
as well as the most sensible.” Grattan, though fearless in the
open advocacy of his principles, was himself a man of modest and
courteous disposition. There was nothing of the political bully or
blustering demagogue in the champions of the cause of legislative
independence. While Grattan and Flood were devoting all their
energies to a common cause, they were separated by a quarrel
which no reconciliation ever brought to an end. Standing apart
from each other, they nevertheless, with the native generosity
of the country which gave them birth, recognised each the mental
and moral worth of the other. As speakers, Flood was admitted to
be the more convincing reasoner of the two; but Grattan, rapid
and epigrammatic, whose sentences were always forged to a white
heat, was irresistible. His was “an oracular loftiness of words
which certainly came nearer the utterance of inspiration than any
eloquence, ancient or modern.” Both were, in youth, unwearied
students of the art of which they became masters, and like
Demosthenes also in this, that they thought no pains too great to
accomplish their ends, believing, like him, that pains so taken
were such as show “a kind of respect for the people.” Flood was a
diligent pupil in the school of classic oratory; while Grattan,
no less persevering, in manner, in tone, in everything that
characterises a speaker, was peculiarly original and alone; for
it cannot be said that in any important particular he resembled
any other great speaker. Comparing him with other orators Mr.
Lecky says--“It was left for Grattan to be profound while he was
fascinating, and pointed while he was profound.”
Although he had retired from public life, and was seriously ill
when the measure which resulted in legislative union with Great
Britain was introduced, Grattan stood for a vacant constituency,
and re-entered the House whose independence he had gained while the
debate affecting its existence was in progress. There have been few
more pathetic scenes in the history of Parliaments than that which,
in the final debate, shows us the old man eloquent, too feeble to
stand, and addressing the House by its leave seated, pleading for
the last time in the cause of his country. It was that he might
spend his latest years in support of the bill for the removal of
the disabilities of Roman Catholics, whose emancipation had been
one of the objects of his political career, that Grattan consented
to enter the British Parliament. The keynote of his plea sounds
in the words he used in one of the speeches upon the question:
“Bigotry may survive persecution, but it can never survive
toleration.” Like Edmund Burke, the path he chose in life was
not one which led to preferment; and it is best perhaps that his
resting-place in the Abbey beside Pitt and Fox is undistinguished
by name or stone. What epitaph could England write for Henry
Grattan? The full-length portraits of Grattan and Flood possessed
by the College hang upon the same wall in the Dining Hall. That
of Grattan represents him in the hour of his triumph, moving the
Declaration of Independence. Flood, a striking figure, stands
defiantly out, as if replying to a hostile speaker in the measured
invective for which he was famous. Flood’s name is to be found in
the list of the benefactors of Trinity College. He left an estate
of five thousand pounds, to be devoted to the purchase of Irish
MSS., and for the encouragement of the study of that language.
In the minutes of the Irish Parliament, as moving and seconding
motions for the removal of the political disabilities of the Roman
Catholics, appear frequently in combination the names of two
peers educated in Dublin University--Lords Mountjoy and O’Neill.
Parliamentary friends when the insurrection of Ninety-Eight plunged
the country into civil war, they became brothers in arms. Alike in
fate, O’Neill fell at the battle of Antrim, Mountjoy at New Ross.
Another illustrious Irish name among the Dublin graduates of the
period is that of Sir Lucius O’Brien, a leading statesman and
financier in the Lower House, a man of much practical ability and
of unblemished honour. As leader of the “Country Party,” he was
foremost in the successful struggle to relieve Irish finance from
waste and corruption, and to free Irish trade and legislation from
unjust restriction.
Plunket, by some considered Grattan’s equal as an orator, must be
regarded as one of the most remarkable men of his age. At the Bar,
as in the Senate, he made a profound impression upon men who,
like Lord Brougham, his warm friend and admirer, were keen critics
and trained lawyers. The severity of his style distinguishes him
from all other speakers of the period. The grace and beauty of
Plunket’s oratory are not to be found in any wealth of ornamental
diction. Its texture was logical; every phrase, whether direct or
involving illustration, was uttered with but one end in view--that
of persuasion. To dazzle without producing conviction is not a part
of the aim of any sincere man. Plunket made no effort to captivate
the sense; he addressed himself to the reason, and to honourable
victory.
[Illustration: PLUNKET.]
Curran, afterwards Master of the Rolls under Fox during his short
administration, made his reputation as a speaker by his defence
of the prisoners in the trials of Ninety-Eight. The speech--a
masterpiece--in which he defended Hamilton Rowan, was, in the
estimation of Brougham, “the most eloquent speech ever delivered at
the Bar.” Curran’s eloquence is florid and passionate, more typical
of Irish oratory, as that phrase is usually understood, than that
of the greater men of the time. He appealed more directly to the
emotions, and was a consummate master in that difficult art--the
arousing and controlling the feelings of his audience. In this
art his younger contemporary, Richard Lalor Sheil, also excelled.
Although of undignified figure, and denied by nature the gifts of
voice and manner which fascinate public assemblies, he overcame all
obstacles to the attainment of that power which, unlike that of the
poet or philosopher, is always a witness of its own triumph.
Thomas Moore was one of the first Roman Catholics to take advantage
of the Act of 1793, which threw open to them the University of
Dublin. Although his co-religionists now obtained the privilege
of attending the College classes, they were debarred until many
years later from the higher academic honours, and Moore, who was
entitled to a Scholarship on his answering, could not profit by
it. He was, however, recognised by the authorities as a youth of
promise, and was the recipient on one occasion of a special prize
for a set of English verses, the prize being a copy of the _Travels
of Anacharsis_, with the inscription, “_Propter laudabilem in
versibus componendis progressum_.” Moore’s recollections of the
debates in the Historical Society, of which he was a prominent
member, are full of interest. He became a close friend of Emmet,
who was, he tells us, at this time “of the popular side in the
Society the chief champion and ornament.” In 1798, when Lord Clare,
the Vice-Chancellor of the University, held a solemn Visitation,
with the view of discovering whether any treasonable persons or
factions had been at work among the students, Moore was examined
as a witness. At first he refused to take the oath, but, on
learning that such refusal would lead to expulsion, submitted,
and gave his evidence, which disclaimed all knowledge of any
secret societies within the University. Moore acknowledges that
the Visitation, though somewhat of an arbitrary proceeding, was
justified in its results. There were, he tells us, a few, among
them Robert Emmet, “whose total absence from the whole scene, as
well as the dead silence that day after day followed the calling
out of their names, proclaimed how deep had been their share in the
unlawful proceedings inquired into by this tribunal.” The modern
critics of the psychological school seem to have agreed to place
“Anacreon” Moore far down on the roll of the “followers of the
narrow footsteps of the bards.” They are unable to find, in _Lalla
Rookh_ or the _Irish Melodies_, the intellectual mastery of life
without which poetry has for them no real value. They complain that
in Moore the sense of
“The heavy and the weary weight
Of all this unintelligible world”
is not sufficiently emphasised, and that he must therefore take
rank as a poet of society upon whom the eternal problems did not
press heavily enough to make him a poet-philosopher. The indictment
may indeed be partially true; but there is poetry which has as
little of the character of a profound philosophy as have the
cravings of the human heart. “The Meeting of the Waters” or “She
is far from the land,” though unweighted by any profound or subtle
thought, will outlive--to venture on prediction--the splendid
unravelling of intellectual complexities in “Mr. Sludge, the
Medium.” There is not, I believe, to be found in any literature
more melodious utterance of real emotion than in the songs of
this true poetic brother of Oliver Goldsmith--like him, and
unlike many of his contemporaries, possessed of “the great poetic
heart,” the possession of which, we have been told, is “more than
all poetic fame.” The charm, as I have already observed, of the
greater part of the poetry and prose of Ireland, lies in its
unaffected purity and naturalness. The lyrical cry we hear in
the music-marvels--“I saw from the beach” and “Oft in the stilly
night”--has a piercing sweetness unrivalled by greater poets of
vastly wider range. For the creator of a nation’s songs there is
little need to fear, despite the critics, the verdict, in a phrase
of Archer Butler’s, of “the incorruptible Areopagus of posterity.”
[Illustration: “THE BURIAL OF SIR JOHN MOORE.”
FAC-SIMILE FROM ORIGINAL LETTER IN THE LIBRARY OF THE ROYAL IRISH
ACADEMY.
(_By Permission._)]
[Illustration: (second page)]
Yet other members of the Historical Society were found among the
leaders of the revolutionary party in the troublous times of the
Irish Rebellion. Wolfe Tone, the leader of the United Irishmen, had
sat in the chair of the Society, obtained three of its medals, and
delivered the closing address of one of the sessions. His place
in history has been accurately defined by a brilliant young Irish
University man of the present generation, Mr. T. W. Rolleston:
“He found national sentiment the property of a small aristocratic
section; he left it the dominant sentiment of the millions of the
Irish democracy.”
The author of “A Battle of Freedom,” Thomas Davis, may rightly be
called the Tyrtæus of the national party. He too held the premier
office, that of Auditor, in the Society above mentioned, and might,
had he lived, have reached a high place, not only among Irish but
among English poets.
Dublin claims many other names of literary note--Sir Samuel
Ferguson, recently lost to us, whose themes were the ancient
traditions and legends of his native land; and (to go a generation
further back) that poet who has earned the laurel by adding to the
treasury of literature one poem not to be forgotten--“The Burial of
Sir John Moore.” (_See fac-simile_, pp. 260, 261.)
It is not part of my task to write contemporary history, of the
Senate or the Bar, in the careers of Butt or Napier or Whiteside
or Cairns. With students of philosophy Archer Butler is a name
to be reverenced, and Stokes and Graves gave to the School of
Medicine in Dublin a European reputation, as witness such a
passage as this from Professor Trousseau: “As Clinical Professor
in the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, I have incessantly read and
re-read the work of Graves; I have become inspired with it in my
teaching; I have endeavoured to imitate it in the book I have
myself published on the Clinique of the Hotel-Dieu; and even now,
though I know almost by heart all that the Dublin Professor has
written, I cannot refrain from perusing a book which never leaves
my study.” In theology, Magee--Archbishop of Dublin, O’Brien, Lee,
and Fitzgerald, and in Irish antiquarian research Todd and Reeves,
have made for themselves an abiding reputation.
[Illustration: (bust of James MacCullagh)]
Mathematicians will not need to be reminded of the importance of
the work done in their province by Hamilton and MacCullagh. Sir
William Rowan Hamilton ranks with the greatest of the explorers of
new scientific territory. To name the author of the _General Method
in Dynamics_ and the inventor of the method of Quaternions is
sufficient; it is impossible here to do more. The position held by
Trinity College in this century as a seat of mathematical learning
is largely due to MacCullagh. He it was who introduced here a more
comprehensive study of the work of Continental mathematicians,
under the auspices of Provost Lloyd.
[Illustration: LEVER.]
The Irish novelists, Maxwell and Le Fanu, have been overshadowed by
the greater Lever. Lever’s descriptions of College life in _Charles
O’Malley_ and other of his novels are a faithful reproduction of
his own experiences. Take him all in all, he is one of the best
story-tellers we have had or shall ever have; a romancer who holds
his readers breathless till the last page is turned in his stories
of adventure, and a dramatist whose situations are among the most
powerful in fiction. The underlying melancholy which Thackeray
saw in Lever gives to his later books, from which the high boyish
spirits of the earlier tales are absent, a graver and deeper human
interest. But he is the most cheerful companion of all the great
story-tellers; and who does not feel a relief in taking up Lever
after the motive-grinding and mental dissections of the modern
novel of purpose?
With the last mentioned name I shall close this review, for I must
not enter the world of to-day. The careers which we or our fathers
have watched in person have been too lately followed to be spoken
of here. They must read many books who seek to know the fortunes
and achievements of the graduates of Dublin in recent years, for a
record of them will carry the reader into the political, military,
and literary history of the English-speaking peoples in all the
continents.
[Illustration: BERKELEY’S TOMB.]
[Illustration: (Decorative section heading)]
DISTINGUISHED GRADUATES
_Referred to in Chapter IX._
PAGE
ASHE, ST. GEORGE 243
BERKELEY, GEORGE 249
BOYLE, ROBERT 241
BRADY, NICHOLAS 241
BROOKE, HENRY 248
BROWNE, PETER 241
BURKE, EDMUND 252
BUSHE, CHARLES KENDEL 253
BUTLER, WILLIAM ARCHER 262
BUTT, ISAAC 262
CLAYTON, ROBERT 252
CONGREVE, WILLIAM 246
CONYNGHAM, WILLIAM, LORD PLUNKET 258
CURRAN, JOHN PHILPOT 258
DAVIS, THOMAS 262
DELANY, PATRICK 243
DENHAM, SIR JOHN 241
DILLON, EARL OF ROSCOMMON 241
DODWELL, HENRY 240
DOPPING, ANTHONY 242
EMMET, ROBERT 259
FARQUHAR, GEORGE 247
FERGUSON, SIR SAMUEL 262
FITZGIBBON, JOHN, EARL OF CLARE 255
FLOOD, HENRY 256
GOLDSMITH, OLIVER 252
GRATTAN, HENRY 255
GRAVES, ROBERT JAMES 262
HAMILTON, SIR WILLIAM ROWAN 263
KING, WILLIAM 241
LESLIE, CHARLES 241
LEVER, CHARLES 263
LE FANU, SHERIDAN 263
LOFTUS, DUDLEY 239
M‘CALMONT, HUGH, EARL CAIRNS 262
MACCULLAGH, JAMES 263
MAGEE, WILLIAM (DUBLIN) 262
MAGEE, WILLIAM CONNOR (YORK) 253
MALONE, EDMUND 253
MAXWELL, WILLIAM 263
MOLYNEUX, WILLIAM 243
MOORE, THOMAS 258
NAPIER, SIR JOSEPH 262
O’BRIEN, SIR LUCIUS 257
PARNELL, THOMAS 248
SHEIL, RICHARD LALOR 258
SKELTON, PHILIP 252
SOUTHERNE, THOMAS 245
SWIFT, JONATHAN 244
TATE, NAHUM 241
TONE, THEOBALD WOLFE 262
TOPLADY, AUGUSTUS 253
USSHER, JAMES 238
WARE, SIR JAMES 239
WHITESIDE, JAMES 262
WILSON, THOMAS 241
WOLFE, CHARLES 260-261
WELLESLEY, GARROD, EARL OF MORNINGTON 253
[Illustration:
MEADE. GARRET WESLEY. CAUFIELD.
1760. 1751. 1690.
]
CHAPTER X.
THE COLLEGE PLATE.
The earliest mention of any acquisition of Plate seems to be the
list of subscriptions (in 1600) for the College Mace, which cost
£12, a large sum in those days. I have heard Provost Humphrey Lloyd
say that this ancient relic of the first days of the College was
extant in his time, and sometimes used, but, being in the charge
of the Bedell, disappeared when the larger and handsomer mace, now
still in use, came to be habitually produced. This regrettable
loss dates from that period in the history of the College when all
ancient things were neglected.
The next entry in the Registry seems to occur in the negotiations
concerning a lease with John Richardson, Bishop of Ardagh, a
friend of James Ussher. In addition to his rent, he promised to
give Communion Plate to the value of £30--“a chalice, paten, and
stoup of silver.” This precious gift (_cf._ p. 44) is still in use,
having escaped all the violences, the negligences, the ignorances
of many generations. The set contains more articles than those
given by Richardson, some far later in date (1700, 1764, &c.),
but all imitated from his gift as a model. The chalice bears the
inscription--
“1632. Johs. Richardson, S.T.P., hujus Collegii quondum socius,
Esse sui dedit hoc monumentum et pignus amoris.”
The flagons are of the finest Caroline design, perfectly simple,
with slight _entasis_ like a Greek pillar. One of them (of the year
1638) bears the inscription--
Par fratrum pariles fecerunt esse lagenas
Moses et Eduardus Hill generosi.[169]
[Illustration: SALVER--GILBERT, 1734.]
It is remarkable that the two silver-gilt chalices now in use at S.
Canice’s Cathedral, Kilkenny, are exactly the same in design, and
dated (from the hall mark) 1635. They have been recently regilt,
while ours has the gilding worn almost completely away. That this
gift was not the first, or a solitary act, is proved by the note
in a letter of Lord Cork, dated May, 1630: “I give my chaplain
50s. to pay the ffees to the officers of Trynitie Colledge, near
Dublin, for the admittance of my two sons, Lewis and Hodge, into
that house, and must also present plate.”[170] It would seem,
therefore, that such gifts were still merely voluntary, whereas
at some very early date the practice was adopted of taxing each
student at matriculation for _argent_. In an account of the year
1628 occurs, “From Mr. Floyd, in lieu of two pieces plate to be
bestowed on the College, £4.” If this was a matriculating Fellow
Commoner, we can see that the custom was just then passing, like
other “Benevolences” known in history, from being purely voluntary
into the class of duties.
But of all these early gifts, only the Communion Plate survives.
What became of the rest appears from the following record (from the
days of the great Irish Rebellion), which I quote from Dr. Stubbs:--
[In] the College [there] had accumulated a considerable amount
of valuable plate, which had been presented to it from time to
time by noblemen and wealthy commoners, whose sons had entered
as students. In one of the early books there is an inventory of
the plate, “8 Potts; 14 Goblets; 2 Beakers, 9 Bowles; 3 Standing
Pieces”; and the names of the donors are preserved.
In the Bursar’s books we find the following entries:--
_£. s. d._
1642. Sept. 15--Borrowed from Jacob Kirwan (for which there
was deposited with him in lieu thereof,
for the space of nine months, the worth
thereof in plate, the names whereof are
written in the College book of plate), 50 0 0
” Nov. 24--Borrowed from Anne Hinson, Widow (for which
there is deposited with her a parcel of
plate, the particulars whereof are written
in the plate book--the moneys were borrowed
for twelve months), 50 0 0
1642. Nov. 24--Received for some small pieces of plate--
viz., gold spoons, 2 7 0
” Dec. 24--Borrowed from Abraham Butts and John Rice,
Executors of John Allen, Bricklayer, for
twelve months, at 8 per cent., on a
mortgage of 273 oz. 14 dwts. of plate
(viz. 4 Bowles, 7 Tankards, and 4 College
Potts), 50 0 0
1643. July 22--Received for some broken pieces of plate
which were coined, 19 15 0
” Oct. 24--Received the overplus which arose out of
the coining of the plate pawned to Dr.
Roak and the Widow Hinson.
1644. ” 20--Received for some parcels of plate which
were coined, 12 6 2
1645. April 19--The plate which had been pawned, as above,
to Abraham Butts and John Price, was made
over by them to Mr. Stout in 1643, who,
upon non-payment of the moneys, had the
plate coined, and the principal and
interest being retained, handed over to
the Bursar the balance, 6 8 4
” Dec. 12--Received for two College potts, weighing
67 oz. 3 dwts., 16 1 8
” ” 24--Received for one College pott, 7 14 0
1645/6. Jan.17--Received for two parcels of plate, weighing
39 oz. 4 dwts., 9 1 8
” Feb. 12--Received for three parcels of plate, 10 19 9
1646. May 28--Received for a Spanish cup coined, 6 8 6
” Aug. 16--Received for Mr. Courtenay’s flagon, which
was coined, 15 16 6
” Oct. 3--Received for a piece of plate which was
broken up and coined to supply the College
with provisions against the approaching
siege (it had been presented by Sir Robert
Trevor of Trevillin, Co. Denbigh, Governor
of Newry, a former benefactor of the
College), 30 19 8
” ” 10--Received for Sir Richard Irven’s College
pott, 18 3 6
” ” 17--A candlestick coined, 15 17 3
” Nov. 30--do. do., 15 15 0
” ” 27--Certain parcels of plate coined (viz. 94 oz.
5 dwts. toucht plate, 16 oz. 12 dwts.
uncertain plate), 26 10 0
1646/7. Received for Sir William Wentworth’s basin
and ewer, weighing 128 oz. 4 dwts., 30 19 8
1647. April 17--Received for some parcels of plate, 15 7 9
” May 25--do. do., 18 14 3
” June 12--do. do., 11 18 0
” ” 29--do. do., 1 4 3
” July 22--Received for some parcels of plate coined, 22 12 7
1647. Sept. 4--Received for a dozen of spoons coined, 3 16 0
” Oct. 21--do. do., 6 1 0
” Nov. 13--In part from Mr. Tounge for a gilt salt and
six spoons, toucht plate, 5 0 0
” ” 20--The balance of same, 1 10 0
” ” 27--For Adam Ussher’s double gilt salt coined, 3 13 0
1647/8. Feb. 7--Received for Mr. Alvey’s College pott and
salt, which were pawned for ten pounds, 10 0 0
1648. April 12--Received in lieu of a silver bowl from
Mr. Taylor, 4 0 0
” ” --Received from the Provost on a piece of
plate, for covering the House, 2 5 0
” May 20--From Mr. Van Syndhoven for a gilt bowl,
pawned, 6 0 0
1649. ” 24--For Mr. Alvey’s plate, from Alderman
Huitcheson, 11 10 4
The whole exceeds £500, then a very large sum. Yet there must
have been much more besides, for it seems impossible that in
the subsequent thirty years 5,000 ounces had again accumulated.
It is not likely that Winter and his associates encouraged such
donations, and we may assume that they commenced again with the
Restoration. There remain from the Restoration time only two
relics, both of which escaped the wreck to be presently related
as being consecrated to the service of the Chapel, viz., a very
handsome alms-plate (15·7), in repoussé work (hall mark A.R.,
with a figure under them, enclosed in a heart-shaped oval), given
by Nehemiah Donelan in 1666; and a far larger (31·05), perfectly
plain alms-plate, of great simplicity and beauty, given by Richard
Bellingham in 1669. There are four later copies (1746, 1814?) of
this plate in the set now used in the Chapel.
We now come to the disastrous days of James II. I again quote from
Dr. Stubbs.
We find in the College Register of January 17, 1686/7:--
“The Provost and Senior Fellows considered that at this time
materials for buildings are cheap, and that workmen may be
hired at easy rates, have agreed on to finish the buildings,
where the foundation is laid on the south side of the Great
Court, and to that end they have resolved to ask leave of the
Visitors of the College to sell so much of the plate as will be
sufficient to defray the charge of the said buildings.”
A memorial was presented to the Visitors, and their answer was
received by the 24th January, permitting the sale of the plate
for the purpose of either building or of purchasing land. On
the 26th of January a petition was presented to the Earl of
Clarendon, then Lord Lieutenant, asking permission to sell the
plate in London, instead of in Dublin, “since exchange runs so
high at present.” On the 29th of January the Lord Lieutenant
granted leave to the College to transport into England 5000
ounces of wrought plate, duty free. On the 7th of February 3999
ounces of plate were shipped on board the “Rose” of Chester,
consigned to Mr. Hussey, a merchant of London, who was directed
to insure a considerable portion of it. On the 12th of February
Lord Tyrconnell was sworn into office as successor to the Earl of
Clarendon; and on the 14th he gave directions to have the College
plate seized on board ship; and it was brought on shore, and
lodged in the Custom House by order of the Lord Deputy. Whereupon
the College made application to have the property belonging to
the Body given back to it; to which the Lord Deputy’s reply was,
that he had written to the King concerning it, and that he had no
doubt they should have it ultimately restored to them.
[Illustration: THE COLLEGE MACE.]
On the 2nd of April the plate was restored to the College on
a promise that they would “no otherwise employ it but for
the public use, benefit, and improvement of the College,
nor transport it from Ireland without the permission of the
authorities;” and on the 7th it was brought from the Custom
House, and deposited for safe keeping “in a closet in the
Provost’s lodging;” and the Board at once decided that the
produce of the plate should be laid out in the purchase of land,
and that such purchase should be inquired after.
On the 8th of June an offer was made by Mr. John Sandes, in
the Queen’s County, to sell land in that county (the estate
now called Monaquid and Cappeneary), to the College for £1150.
On the 5th of July the Board offered to Mr. Sandes to pay him
£1000 in money from the sale of the College plate, and to give
him a twenty-one years’ lease of the lands at £80 a-year. If
he refused, the Board decided to offer Sir George St. George
eight years’ purchase for his land in the county of Kilkenny.
On the 21st of November the plate was ordered to be sold to Mr.
Benjamin Burton, at 5_s._ per ounce, to purchase Monaquid from
John Sandes. On the first day of April following Burton purchased
3960½ ounces, for which he gave his bond to pay £990 2_s._
6_d._ On the 7th of February, 1687/8, the Lord Deputy sent for
the Provost about the sale of the plate by the College, which he
said was “against his command, and their former obligations.”
The Provost told him that it was to purchase £80 a-year for the
College. The Lord Deputy said that “he did not know but £80
a-year might be as good for the College as the plate,” but he
directed them to hold their hands until he had consulted the
Attorney-General (Nagle).
It is clear that Nugent, having now become Chief Justice, was
a bitter enemy of the College, and at the bottom of all this
trouble, for we find that he took upon himself to send for Mr.
Burton, and to examine him as to the purchase of the plate.
Burton admitted that he had done so, and the Chief Justice
charged him with having bought stolen plate which belonged to
the King, and bound him over to prosecute the Provost and Senior
Fellows at the next Term.
The Provost afterwards consulted the Attorney-General, who, upon
hearing the whole matter, approved of the design of the College
to buy land with the proceeds of the plate, and promised to
give a true representation of the affair to his Excellency. On
the 17th February the Lord Deputy told the Provost that he had
discoursed with the Lord Chancellor and some of the Judges about
it, and thought that matter might be accommodated. He bid the
Provost to beware of the title of the land, and to consult the
Attorney-General, which the College afterwards did; and Nagle
gave his advice and assistance in the drawing up of the deeds
relating to the purchase of the land; and on the 12th of April,
1688, the purchase of Mr. Sandes’ estate was completed at £1150,
the balance of the plate money being paid out of the common chest.
The terrible risks to which the old Communion Plate was presently
exposed have been mentioned (_cf._ p. 41) in a former chapter.
From the period of the 2nd Restoration, a great series of gifts
commences with the salver given by Provost Huntingdon, which is
stated to be worth £30. This estimate is far above the value, and
can never have been paid for it. I think it not unlikely that it
was the very piece given by the College to him, in testimony of
his kindness to the exiled members of the College in 1690. He was
afterwards, by their influence, made Bishop of Raphoe, but died
in a few days after his consecration. This present may have been
bequeathed back again to the College.
[Illustration:
PLUNKET, 1702. MEADE, 1708.
PUNCH BOWLS.
]
With the increase of prosperity, after William III. had conquered
at the Boyne, we find the habit arising of presenting forks,
spoons, and other plate for ordinary table use, by Fellow
Commoners. There is a considerable stock of this kind, now hidden
in the College safes, dated from 1693 to 1705, and some of it a
good deal later; and with these simpler articles are eighteen
silver candlesticks of very good design, all of Queen Anne’s
period. The finest and largest were given for the use of the altar
by Pierce Butler, the 4th Viscount Ikerron (now the 2nd title of
the Earl of Carrick) in 1693. Of nearly the same period are a
number of handsome salvers and cups, fluted, as Irish silver so
often was at that period, ranging from 1690 to 1708. The handsomest
cups are those given by Archbishop Palliser and Mr. Duncombe, of
Cork, respectively, which are reproduced on p. 273. The best of
the salvers are a pair given by the Marquis of Abercorn, at the
entrance of his elder two and his younger two sons, whose arms and
names are engraved upon the centre. An epergne of George II.’s time
is given on p. 274. But the number of these beautiful gifts, and
their variety, is such that it would require a volume to reproduce
them, and a specialist to describe them. Of the cups we have given
several specimens on p. 267. The punch-bowls, and the beautiful
ladles made for them subsequently (1746), are not easily to be
surpassed. But on a par with them may be placed the College mace
(_see_ p. 271), with the hall mark of 1707, of which there is no
mention made, unless it be in the College Register. The gilt silver
salver from the bequest of Claud. Gilbert in 1734 (_see_ p. 268) is
the last great addition to the Communion Plate. What was since made
or given is mere copying of the old models.
We should have imagined that these are only a few specimens of
the large gifts now received by the College from its increasing
classes, and from the increase in the wealth of its members; yet we
hear the following curious story:--
[Illustration: DUNCOMBE CUP, 1680.]
[Illustration: PALLISER CUP, 1709.]
“Lord Mornington, for Plate, £659 11s. 7d.” Whether this sum
represents the price of the plate purchased from him by the
College, or that which he was authorised to expend for the
College, we cannot say. In eight years from 1758, a sum of close
upon £1250 was expended in purchases of this description. No
doubt the College had at this period many large cups presented to
it from time to time, but in respect to ordinary table silver it
appears to have been in Provost Baldwin’s time very deficient.
When the Lord Lieutenant was entertained by the College, plate
had to be hired of the silversmiths for the occasion; but as each
Fellow-Commoner had been for a long period charged £6 at his
entrance for plate, and each Pensioner 12s., a very considerable
sum must have accumulated which was applicable for this purpose.
Looking carefully into the plate chests to see how this large sum
of money was spent, we only find a number of large dishes for
turbot, joints of meat, &c., and their covers, all of solid silver,
together with side cover dishes, and thirty-three open dishes of
various sizes, which can account for it. The supply of knives and
forks, which is large, all comes from special and named bequests.
The designs are not very good, and the plate of a kind not easy
to use now-a-days.[171] When the next misfortune happened to the
College Plate, it is a pity that the large and now useless dishes
had not gone out of fashion. Provost Hutchinson, desiring to have
a set of plates to match the dishes, got leave to melt down old
cups and pots to make the set which we still possess, and which
are really handsome (_circ._ 1780). A MS. is preserved among the
College documents specifying the cups so destroyed, as well as
the coats of arms upon them. They mostly dated from the reign of
George I., and were in many cases one of a pair given by the same
donor, of which the second still survives. But with this act of
his Provostship, long before the close of the century, all public
spirit in the matter seems suddenly quenched. The tax for _argent_
had been abandoned, we know not when. Provost Murray and his
successors had no taste for display, still less for adding material
dignity to the College, and it has been left for our own generation
to re-discover the beauty and the value of this series of ancient
gifts, which for three generations were only seen at dinners in the
Provost’s House. The feelings of generous young men were probably
damped by seeing that what their predecessors had given _in usum
Collegii_ had disappeared from sight, and was lost out of mind.
Possibly the tutors may have fanned the indignation of their pupils
at the appropriation of the gifts intended for the College Hall
by the Provost for the adornment of his country seat. The Fellow
Commoners could no longer obtain plate for their breakfasts or
luncheons, as the students of Oxford or Cambridge Colleges did, and
still do. With the return of greater respect for these bequests
will return again to the members of the College the desire to leave
this very tasteful record of gratitude for the daily contemplation
and use of succeeding generations.
[Illustration: EPERGNE (REIGN OF GEORGE II.).]
FOOTNOTES:
[169] The first line is a hexameter, as is the second line of the
previous inscription. Moses is a traditional Christian name in Lord
Downshire’s family (Hill).
[170] _Cf._ Stubbs, _op. cit._ p. 83, who quotes from the Lismore
Papers, iii., p. 80. I also presume that Mr. Alvey’s plate,
mentioned in the list on page 3, must mean Provost Alvey’s
donation, which would be as old as 1609. “Sir William Wentworth’s
basin and ewer,” in the same list, would point to his government of
Ireland as a date.
[171] A pair of these soup tureens and covers were given as early
as 1722 by William Fitzgerald, Bishop of Clogher.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]
CHAPTER XI.
THE BOTANICAL GARDENS AND HERBARIUM.
“_The spleen is seldom felt where Flora reigns._”
In the year 1711 there was a Lecturership of Botany in connection
with the Medical School of Trinity College, and there was
apparently a “Physic Garden” near the School, extending from
the Anatomy House towards Nassau Street, as seen on Rocque’s
Map (_ante_, p. 187). Dr. Nicholson was the first Lecturer;
he published a pamphlet of some 40 pages, entitled _Methodus
plantarum, in horto medico collegii Dublinensis, jamjam
disponendarum_, Dublini, 1712, which the writer has not seen. The
garden could not have been on a very large scale, but it would
appear to have supplied the needs of the School for over fifty
years, for it is not until during the Lecturership of Edward Hill
that we find that the garden was transferred to the neighbourhood
of Harold’s Cross, where it was in part the private property of
the Lecturer on Botany, but assisted by a grant in aid from the
College. Dr. Stubbs[172] tells us that “in 1801 a Curator was
appointed, and that in March, 1805, his salary was fixed at £130
yearly, out of which he was to employ two labourers all the year
round, and two additional labourers from March to December.”
Mr. Hill retired from the Lecturership in 1800, which, on the
passing of the Act 25 George III. (1785), “for establishing a
complete School of Physic in Ireland,” had been made into a
University Professorship. There was some difference of opinion
between Hill and the College authorities as to the value of the
plants and houses, and in the College accounts for 1803 there
occurs the following entry:--“Dr. Hill, allowed him by the award
of the arbitrators, to whom the cause between the College and him
concerning the Botany Garden was referred, £618 19s. 8d.”
The two last decades of the last century were noteworthy, from a
botanical point of view, for the immense interest that was taken in
Great Britain and Ireland about the cultivation of exotic plants;
the latter voyages of Captain Cook, and those of Captain Vancouver,
had, through the zeal of Banks, Solander, and Menzies--to mention
only a trio of the worthies of that period--been the means of
bringing to the Kew Gardens many most interesting plants; the
publication by Aiton of his _Hortus Kewensis_, a catalogue of the
plants cultivated in the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, and of
Francis Bauer’s _Delineations of Exotic Plants_ cultivated in the
same gardens, had given a fresh impetus to their study, and from
about this date the period of the scientific Botanic Garden may be
said to date, and the day of the “Physic Garden” to end.
The subject of having a Botanical Garden in Dublin began to be
debated about 1789, and in 1790 the Irish House of Commons voted a
sum of £300 to the Dublin Society “in aid of the cost of providing
a Botanic Garden;” this Society, which took an active interest
in everything tending to promote the welfare of the country, at
once appointed a Committee, consisting of Drs. Perceval, Hill, and
Wade, to consider the question. Dr. Perceval had just retired from
the Secretaryship of the Royal Irish Academy. Dr. Hill was the
Dublin University Professor of Botany. Dr. Wade was the Lecturer
on Botany to the Dublin Society, and the author of the first
published catalogue of Dublin plants, and of _Plantæ rariores in
Hibernia inventæ_. On the report of this Committee, the Royal
Dublin Society resolved that letters should be written to the
University of Dublin and the College of Physicians requesting their
advice and assistance, and hoping that they would approve of the
measure and have money granted towards the scheme. This letter
was sent in June, 1791, and after the long vacation the Board of
Trinity replied through their Registrar as follows:--“That it
had been of a long time the anxious wish of the Board of Trinity
College to co-operate in any scheme by which a Botanic Garden may
be established on the most useful principles; that for this purpose
they had allocated an annual sum at present exceeding £100, and in
order to expedite the plan they had appointed a Select Committee
of the Senior Fellows, who were ready at the most convenient time
to meet any deputation from the Dublin Society and the College of
Physicians, and to report their proceedings to the Board.” At this
time the College of Physicians had not replied to the invitation of
the Dublin Society; but on December 8th, 1791, they also intimated
that they had appointed a Select Committee, consisting of Sir W. G.
Newcomen, Bart., Andrew Caldwell, and Patrick Bride, to consider
the subject.
What negotiations may have taken place during 1792 are not known,
but we find that in 1793 a Bill was brought in to the House of
Commons, by the Right Hon. the Secretary of State, “to direct the
application of certain sums of money heretofore granted towards
providing and maintaining a Botanic Garden to the Dublin Society,
and for the appointment of Trustees for that purpose;” whereupon
the Provost and Board of Senior Fellows presented the following
petition:--
“MARTIS, 11 DIE JUNII, 1793.
“A petition of the Provost, Fellows, and Scholars of the College,
under their common seal, was presented to the House and read,
setting forth, that the Petitioners and their predecessors have
for a long series of years used their best endeavours to promote
the study and improve the faculty of Physic in said College,
and considerable sums of money have been, and are annually and
otherwise applied by them for that purpose.
“That an Act having passed in this kingdom for the establishment
of a complete School of Physic, of which the University
Professors make a part, namely, the Professors of Botany,
Chemistry, and Anatomy, the petitioners, for the encouragement of
science, and without obligation from the charter or statutes so
to do, have continued to make a liberal provision for the support
of those professorships; that a Botanic Garden is indispensably
necessary for the success of that science, but the funds of said
College are totally inadequate to the establishment or support
of such an institution, they have exerted their utmost efforts
to promote it by allocating for that purpose a fund, which in
the last year amounted to £112, but which will be insufficient
for the establishment or maintenance of such an institution;
that the Legislature having been pleased to grant several sums
of money to the Dublin Society towards providing and maintaining
a Botanic Garden, that society caused application to be made to
the petitioners for their advice, assistance, and contributions,
and, as the petitioners are informed, applied to the College of
Physicians for the like purposes, and the members of the College
have, as far as in them lay, granted the annual sum of £100 for
the purpose out of funds vested in them for medical purposes; the
petitioners apprehend that by the application of the said several
funds, and by the co-operation of a certain number of persons out
of the said three bodies, the success of said scheme will be most
effectually promoted; that the copy of a bill for these purposes
having been laid before the petitioners, they are humbly of
opinion that the said bill, if passed into a law, would tend to
promote the success of the said institution, which they consider
as necessary to a complete School of Physic, and useful to the
University, and whatever regulations may be made in respect to
the said establishment, they humbly hope that the wisdom of the
Legislature will provide that medical and other students shall
have the full benefit of it, the petitioners having nothing in
view but their advantage, the success of said School of Physic,
and the advancement of science.
“Ordered, that the said petition be referred to the committee
of the whole House, to whom it was referred to take into
consideration a Bill for directing the application of certain
sums of money heretofore granted towards providing and
maintaining a Botanic Garden, and for the appointment of trustees
for that purpose.”[173]
A petition from the President and Fellows of the King’s and Queen’s
College of Physicians in Dublin, under the common seal, was
presented to the House and read, setting forth--
“That in the year 1758 the House was pleased to appoint a
committee to inquire into the best means for the establishment
of a complete School of Physic in this kingdom, and to refer
a petition from the petitioners for that purpose to the said
committee, before which several of said College were examined,
who, on such examination, declared their opinion that a Botanic
Garden was necessary to such an institution; and the said
committee was pleased to enter into a resolution to that effect:
that in the year 1790 the Legislature was pleased to grant to
the Dublin Society, towards providing and maintaining a Botanic
Garden, and the said society, &c.”[173]
It then proceeds in a manner similar to the petition from the
College, and it was ordered for consideration with it. With what
immediate result is not apparent; but on the 20th of June in the
next year (1794) the Dublin Society petitioned the Irish House
of Commons that “they might have the sole management of the sums
granted by Parliament for the purposes of a Botanic Garden, and
that such sums may not be invested in trustees contrary to the
grant already made to it, and further, that no other body may be
joined with said society in the execution of the trusts reposed in
it.”
The influence of the Society proved to be stronger in the House
of Commons than that of the University of Dublin or the College
of Physicians, and the Dublin Society was intrusted with the sole
management of the sums voted, and so the conjoint scheme ended.
The Dublin Society, in February, 1792, had appointed a Committee,
consisting of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Bishop
of Kilmore, Sir W. G. Newcomen, S. Hayes, Th. Burgh, And. Caldwell,
and Col. C. Eustace, with powers to take ground for a Botanical
Garden for the Society; and on the decision of the House of
Commons being known, the Society, on the 26th February, 1795, took
possession of sixteen acres of ground near the “town of Glasnevin,
which Major Tickell held by a Toties Quoties Lease from the Dean
and Chapter of Christ Church.”
In July, 1806, the Board of Trinity College took a lease of a small
piece of ground near Ball’s Bridge, about a mile from the College,
containing over three acres; in 1832 they acquired about two acres
adjoining in addition, alongside the Pembroke Road. In 1848 about
two acres more as a shelter belt along the Lansdowne Road were
added, so that the garden now consists of something more than
eight acres in all. The first-mentioned plot was surrounded by a
high wall, and in 1807 the laying out of the ground was commenced
by the newly-appointed Curator, J. T. Mackay. Some twenty years
after, we find Mackay writing as follows about “several foreign
plants naturalised under the climate of Ireland, chiefly in these
gardens”:--
“The College Botanic Garden, which was established in 1807, is
situated on the Black Rock road about half-a-mile from Dublin.
The soil is a deep sandy loam.
“It may be necessary to remark in order the degree of cold the
plants were subjected to. Although the winters in Ireland are in
general very mild, the intensity of the frost during the last
five winters has been occasionally very great, as in December,
1819, the thermometer once fell to 15° Fahr.; in January, 1820,
to 16° Fahr.; in February, 1821, to 16° Fahr.; in December, 1822,
to 25° Fahr.; in January, 1823, to 15° Fahr.; and on December 3,
1824, to 18° Fahr.”
He gives a list of thirty-seven plants, chiefly natives of
Chili, China, New South Wales, and the South of Europe, planted
in the open air, and among them “_Veronica decussata_, a native
of the Falkland Islands, the only shrubby species of the genus.
_Olea europea_, which was unprotected for the last seven years.
_Ligustrum lucidum_: one plant in the open border was now six
feet high [it is now twenty feet]. _Pittosporum tobira_, lately
introduced, stood without protection. _Solanum bonariense_ stood
planted near a wall. _Cassia stipulacea_ stood out by a wall, in
a south-east exposure, for the last eight years, and produced
copiously its showy blossoms in April and May, but required some
mat protection in severe weather. _Aristotelia Macqui_: one
specimen is now fourteen feet high; it retains its leaves in mild
winters, but drops them in spring before another set is produced.
_Mespilus japonica_ (Loquat) grows to a large size, retains its
leaves throughout the winter, but never flowers; and _Melaleuca
alba_ stood out on a south-east wall for the last five years, and
blossomed last summer.”[174]
James Townsend Mackay was the author of the _Flora Hibernica_,
published in Dublin in 1836. He was made an honorary LL.D. of the
University of Dublin in 1849. He was an excellent botanist, and
his name is still kept in grateful and pleasant memory in the
Gardens which he laid out, and which he so ably managed for over
forty years. Harvey named after him a beautiful acanthaceous
plant, _Mackaya bella_. On his decease Mr. John Bain was appointed
Curator, and on his retirement on an annuity Mr. Frederick Moore
was appointed, on whose succeeding his well-known father, Dr. David
Moore, in the care of the Botanical Gardens, Glasnevin, the post
was given to F. W. Burbidge, M.A.--about all of whom, as happily
still living, we cannot write.
The outer garden, which runs along two sides of the ground
originally enclosed, is surrounded by a lofty iron railing. This
space has been most judiciously planted with trees and shrubs.
Hollies in variety are especially luxuriant. Advantage has also
been taken of the wall, which is now covered with many choice
plants, among which may be mentioned fine plants of _Magnolia
grandiflora_, which in some years flower profusely; _Colletia
ferox_ and _C. cruciata_, large specimens of _Pyrus japonica_,
_Wistaria sinensis_, _Chimonanthus fragans_, _Choisya ternata_,
_Smilax latifolia_, and many such like.
The inner garden contains a well-arranged collection of the
principal natural orders of plants, a large stove-house, two
green-houses, an orchid and a fern house. Opposite one of the
green-houses there is a small pond, the water for which is brought
in from the River Dodder; but, in addition to this water-supply,
the garden has a supply under pressure from the City of Dublin
Water Works.
The Gardens are open during daylight to the officers and students
of the College, and to others on orders to be obtained from any of
the Fellows or the Professor of Botany. Lectures are delivered in
the Gardens during Trinity Term to the Medical School Class, and to
students working for the Natural Science Medal.
THE HERBARIUM.
Between 1830 and 1840 there was a small collection of plants kept
in presses in No. 40 College, which chiefly consisted of a series
of specimens gathered in Mexico and California by Dr. Coulter; but
it was not until 1844, when the late Dr. W. H. Harvey was appointed
Curator, while Dr. G. J. Allman was elected to the Professorship
of Botany, that the foundation of the present Herbarium was really
laid. Dr. Harvey, prior to 1841, had spent several years in an
official position at the Cape of Good Hope, where he had succeeded
in making large collections of the native plants, and he had from
time to time published (chiefly in Hooker’s _Journal of Botany_)
many descriptions of new and rare forms. Compelled by the state
of his health to return to Europe in the spring of 1842, in the
following year his health was sufficiently restored to make him
wish for some active employment. The Professorship of Botany became
vacant in 1843, and Harvey was a candidate. To qualify him for the
post, Harvey was made a M.D. _Honoris Causa_; but it was contended
that this was not sufficient, and that a properly qualified medical
man alone could occupy the chair. As a result, Allman was elected
to the Professorship, and the post of Curator of the Herbarium was
specially endowed for Harvey, who presented his collection of dried
plants to the College, and received some increased pay therefor,
with a proviso that, should other provisions be made, and that as a
result he were to lose the post, a certain sum that was agreed upon
should be paid to Harvey by the College. He entered upon his duties
in March, 1844, and for a little over twenty years the Herbarium
was yearly increased by his zeal and labour. In September, 1844,
we find a record of his adding 4,000 species at “one haul” to the
collection, from Sir W. Hooker’s duplicates; a few weeks later were
added 1,400 species from the interior of the Swan River Colony,
collected by Drummond. Soon the couple of rooms in No. 40 became
too small, and room after room was added until the whole of the
first or floor flat was filled. With this increase of specimens
came the necessary demands on the Bursar for money, not only to pay
for new plants, but for the necessary paper on which to mount them.
At first an annual sum of £10 was placed at Harvey’s disposal; then
on his urgent entreaties, supported by those of John Ball, who from
the first days of the Herbarium to the last of his own was ever a
faithful friend of Trinity College, this sum was increased to £30
(this to include the ten). Next we find serious objection taken
to a special charge of £34 for paper, and Harvey was obliged to
promise that he would be content if allowed to spend an average
annual sum of £10 on this most important adjunct to a Herbarium.
[Illustration: BOTANICAL GARDENS--THE POND. WINTER.]
In spite of all these little drawbacks, by the year 1850 the
Board’s confidence in Harvey had so increased, and the Bursar had
become so sympathetic, that we find a yearly sum of £108 paid
as Herbarium expenses, and collections were bought from Spruce,
Bowker, Wright, Fendler, Jameson, and many others.
The year 1858 was rendered notable by the purchase of Count
Limingan’s Herbarium for £237, the duplicates of which were
disposed of to the Melbourne University Herbarium and to the
Queen’s College, Cork. During 1849-50 Harvey visited the United
States, and by this visit greatly added to the College collections;
and his lengthened tour in Australia and the South Sea Islands
during 1853-55, chiefly made for the purpose of collecting _Algæ_,
resulted in making the College Herbarium so rich in these forms
that it has become a necessary resort for all students of this
group of plants, containing as it does the types as well as the
finest series of specimens collected by one who was during his
lifetime the chief authority upon these plants. Harvey died on
the 15th of May, 1866, at Torquay. To the very last the College
Herbarium was in his thoughts. To the writer of these lines he
dictated a letter, signed by him in pencil, and dated the 12th May,
1866, giving directions about certain packages of plants:--“The six
bundles of _Erica_ belong to the Cape Government Herbarium, and
should be put with the others in the box, so that they may not be
forgotten when the packing time comes. On the table you will find
in an old marble paper cover the MSS. of the new edition of the
_Genera of South African Plants_, which put by carefully, and which
Dr. Hooker will probably inquire about;” and so on with four pages
of last words, for the letter concludes, “I tell you all these
things because I never expect to see the Herbarium again, and I
wish to leave all things as straight as I can.”
In 1878 the Herbarium was transferred from No. 40 College, these
rooms being required for students, to the large room over the great
staircase leading to the Front or Regent’s Hall; but since then,
as no money is allowed for the purchase of new specimens, the
increase of the collection has depended exclusively on donations,
and some very generous ones have been received, among which may be
mentioned as among the more important those from Dr. Grunow, of
Vienna; Professor Farlow, of the Harvard University; Dr. E. Bornet,
of Paris; Professor A. G. Agardh, of Upsala; and Baron F. Mueller,
of Melbourne.
The general collection in the Herbarium is a fairly representative
one. There is still kept as a distinct collection the one made by
Harvey for the purpose of writing the _Flora Capensis_. The British
Collection is also kept by itself. There is a very fine series of
_algæ_ and of mosses, and a small collection of lichens and fungi.
A commencement has been made of a collection of woods, fruits, and
seeds in the Botanical Museum.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter ending)]
FOOTNOTES:
[172] _History of the University of Dublin_ (1591 to 1800), p. 270.
[173] Taylor: _History of the University of Dublin_, pp. 101-2.
[174] _Dublin Philosophical Journal_, vol. i., 1825, p. 211.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]
CHAPTER XII.
THE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE OFFICERS, 1892.
THE CHANCELLOR.
The Right Hon. Laurence, Earl of Rosse, LL.D., K.P.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR.
The Right Hon. John Thomas Ball, LL.D., P.C.
THE PROVOST.
The Rev. George Salmon, D.D., D.C.L.
THE VISITORS.
The Lord Chancellor and The Lord Chief Justice.
THE SENIOR FELLOWS (_Classis Prima_).
CO-OPTED
The Rev. Joseph Carson, D.D., _Vice-Provost_, 1866
The Rev. Thomas Stack, M.A., _Catechist and Senior Dean_, 1869
The Rev. Samuel Haughton, M.D., D.C.L., _Senior Proctor_, 1881
The Rev. John William Stubbs, D.D., _Bursar_, 1882
John Kells Ingram, LL.D., Litt.D., _Senior Lecturer_, 1884
The Rev. Hewitt Robert Poole, D.D., _Auditor_, 1890
George Ferdinand Shaw, LL.D., _Registrar_, 1890
THE JUNIOR FELLOWS (_Classis Secunda_).
ELECTED
The Rev. James William Barlow, M.A., 1850
The Rev. Richard Mountifort Conner, D.D.,
_Junior Bursar and Registrar of Chambers_, 1851
Benjamin Williamson, M.A., Sc.D., 1852
The Rev. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, B.D.,
Litt.D., 1854
The Rev. Thomas Thompson Gray, M.A.,
_Junior Dean_, 1862
The Rev. John Pentland Mahaffy, D.D., 1864
Anthony Traill, LL.D., M.D., M.Ch. 1865
Francis Alexander Tarleton, LL.D., Sc.D., 1866
Arthur Palmer, M.A., Litt.D., 1867
Robert Yelverton Tyrrell, M.A., Litt.D., 1868
George Lambert Cathcart, M.A., 1870
William Snow Burnside, M.A., Sc.D., 1871
William Smyth M‘Cay, M.A., 1872
Arthur William Panton, M.A., Sc.D., 1873
George Francis FitzGerald, M.A., Sc.D., 1877
Frederick Purser, M.A., 1879
Louis Claude Purser, M.A., Litt.D., 1881
William Ralph Westropp Roberts, M.A., 1882
Edward Parnall Culverwell, M.A., 1883
Rev. John Henry Bernard, B.D., 1884
John Bagnell Bury, M.A., 1885
Alexander Charles O’Sullivan, M.A., 1886
John Isaac Beare, M.A., 1887
Robert Russell, M.A., 1888
Matthew Wyatt Joseph Fry, M.A.,
_Junior Proctor_, 1889
William Joseph Myles Starkie, M.A., 1890
George Wilkins, M.A., 1891
Henry Stewart Macran, 1892
PROFESSORS WHO ARE NOT FELLOWS (_Classis Tertia_).
ELECTED
Edward Perceval Wright, M.D., 1858
Mir Aulad Ali, M.A., 1861
Sir Robert Prescott Stewart, Mus. Doc., 1862
Albert Maximilian Selss, LL.D., 1866
Robert Atkinson, LL.D., Litt.D., 1867
Edward Dowden, LL.D., Litt.D., 1867
Edward H. Bennett, M.D., 1873
Sir Robert Ball, LL.D., Sc.D., 1874
James Emerson Reynolds, M.D., Sc.D., 1875
Henry Brougham Leech, LL.D., 1878
Rev. James Goodman, M.A., 1879
Henry W. Mackintosh, M.A., 1879
Sir John Thomas Banks, K.C.B., M.D., 1880
Charles Francis Bastable, LL.D., 1882
Daniel John Cunningham, M.D., Sc.D., 1883
William Johnson Sollas, LL.D., 1883
Rev. George Thomas Stokes, D.D., 1883
Thomas Alexander, M.A.I., 1887
Richard Robert Cherry, LL.D., 1888
Rev. John Gwynn, D.D., 1888
Rev. Samuel Hemphill, B.D., 1888
Rev. Frederick Richards Wynne, D.D., 1888
George Vaughan Hart, LL.D., 1890
Sir George Hornridge Porter, Bart., M.D., 1891
UNIVERSITY REPRESENTATIVES IN PARLIAMENT.
ELECTED
Right Hon. David Robert Plunket, LL.D., 1870
Right Hon. Dodgson H. Madden, M.A., 1887
THE UNIVERSITY PREACHERS FOR THE YEAR.
_Ordinary._
Rev. John W. Stubbs, D.D.
Rev. Hewitt R. Poole, D.D.
Rev. Thomas K. Abbott, B.D.
_Select._
Rev. Thomas Lucas Scott, M.A.
Rev. Samuel Hemphill, B.D.
Rev. Arthur Gore, M.A.
EVENING PREACHERS.
Rev. Richard M. Conner, M.A.
Rev. Thomas T. Gray, M.A.
Rev. John H. Bernard, B.D.
Rev. Henry W. Carson, B.D.
Rev. James G. Carleton, B.D.
UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE PROFESSORS AND LECTURERS.
_Arranged in Chronological order according to the date of
Foundation._
[Those marked (*) are elected annually.]
_Regius Professor of Divinity._
[Founded 1607 (? 1600) as Professorship of Divinity;
made a Regius Professorship, 1761.]
ELECTED
1888. John Gwynn, D.D.
_Assistants_:
Thomas D. Gray, M.A.
*George T. Stokes, D.D.
*James Walsh, D.D.
*Henry W. Carson, B.D.
_Regius Professor of Physic._
[Founded 1637.]
1880. Sir John Thomas Banks, K.C.B., M.D.
_Regius Professor of Laws._
[Founded 1668.]
1888. Henry Brougham Leech, LL.D.
_Donegal Lecturer in Mathematics._
[Founded 1675.]
Arthur William Panton, M.A.
_Professor of Anatomy and Chirurgery._
[Founded 1711.]
1883. Daniel John Cunningham, M.D., Sc.D.
_Professor of Botany._
[Founded 1711.]
1869. Edward Perceval Wright, M.A., M.D.
_Professor of Chemistry._
[Founded 1711.]
1875. James Emerson Reynolds, M.D., Sc.D.
_Assistant_: E. A. Werner.
_Demonstrator_: William Early.
*_University Anatomist._
[Founded 1716.]
1892. Henry St. John Brooks, M.D., Sc.D.
_Archbishop King’s Lecturer in Divinity._
[Founded 1718.]
1888. John Henry Bernard, B.D.
_Assistants_:
Richard M. Conner, D.D.
Thomas K. Abbott, B.D.
*Charles Irvine Graham, B.D.
*James G. Carleton, B.D.
*H. Jackson Lawlor, B.D.
_Professor of Hebrew._
[Founded by the Board of Erasmus Smith, 1724.]
1879. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, B.D., Litt.D.
_Lecturers in Hebrew._
Richard M. Conner, M.A.
Thomas T. Gray, M.A.
Arthur Palmer, M.A.
_Erasmus Smith’s Professor of Natural and
Experimental Philosophy._
[Founded 1724.]
1881. George Francis FitzGerald, M.A.
_Assistants_:
Frederick F. Trouton, B.A.
John Joly, M.A., Sc.D.
_Erasmus Smith’s Professor of Oratory._
[Founded 1724 as a Professorship of Oratory and Modern History;
the Modern History was made a separate Chair in 1762.]
1867. Edward Dowden, LL.D., Litt.D.
_Regius Professor of Greek._
[Founded 1761.]
1880. Robert Yelverton Tyrrell, M.A., Litt.D.
_Regius Professor of Feudal and English
Law._
[Founded 1761.]
1890. George Vaughan Hart, LL.D.
_Erasmus Smith’s Professor of Mathematics._
[Founded 1762.]
1879. William Snow Burnside, M.A., Sc.D.
_Erasmus Smith’s Professor of Modern History._
[Founded 1762.]
1860. James William Barlow, M.A.
_Professor of Music._
[Founded 1764.]
1862. Sir Robert Prescott Stewart, Mus. Doc.
_Professor of the Romance Languages._
[Founded 1778 as Professorship of Italian and Spanish.]
1867. Robert Atkinson, LL.D., Litt. D.
_Professor of German._
[Founded in 1778 as Professorship of French and German;
the Chair of French is now merged in that of
Romance Languages.]
1866. Albert Maximilian Selss, LL.D.
_Royal Astronomer of Ireland, on the
Foundation of Dr. Andrews._
[Founded 1783.]
1874. Sir Robert Stawell Ball, LL.D., Sc.D.
_Assistant_: Arthur A. Rambaut, M.A., Sc.D.
*_Donnellan Lecturers._
[Founded 1794.]
1889. Frederick Falkiner Carmichael, LL.D.
1890. Thomas Lucas Scott, M.A.
_Professor of Political Economy._
[Founded 1832.]
1882. Charles Francis Bastable, LL.D.
_Professor of Moral Philosophy._
[Founded 1837.]
1889. John Isaac Beare, M.A.
_Professor of Biblical Greek._
[Founded 1838.]
1888. Samuel Hemphill, B.D.
_Professor of Irish._
[Founded 1840.]
1879. James Goodman, M.A.
_Professor of Geology and Mineralogy._
[Founded 1844.]
1883. William Johnson Sollas, LL.D.
_University Professor of Natural Philosophy._
[Founded 1847.]
1890. Francis Alexander Tarleton, LL.D., Sc.D.
_Assistant_: Anthony Traill, LL.D.
_Professor of Surgery._
[Founded 1849.]
1873. Edward H. Bennett, M.D.
_Professor of Ecclesiastical History._
[Founded 1850.]
1883. George Thomas Stokes, D.D.
_Regius Professor of Surgery._
[Founded 1852.]
1891. Sir George H. Porter, Bart., M.D.
_Professor of Civil Engineering._
[Founded 1852.]
1887. Thomas Alexander, M.A.I.
_Assistant_: Walter E. Lilly.
_Professor of Arabic, Persian, and Hindustani._
[Founded 1856.]
1861. Mir Aulad Ali, M.A.
_Professor of Zoology._
[Founded 1857.]
1879. Henry W. Mackintosh, M.A.
_Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology._
[Founded 1858.]
1871. Robert Atkinson, LL.D., Litt.D.
_Professor of English Literature._
[Founded 1867.]
1867. Edward Dowden, LL.D., Litt.D.
_Professor of Ancient History._
[Founded 1869.]
1869. John Pentland Mahaffy, D.D., Mus. Doc.
_Professor of Latin._
[Founded 1870.]
1880. Arthur Palmer, M.A., Litt.D.
_Professor of Comparative Anatomy._
[Founded 1872.]
1883. Henry W. Mackintosh, M.A.
_Public Orator._
[Founded 1879.]
1888. Arthur Palmer, M.A., Litt.D.
_Professor of Pastoral Theology._
[Founded 1888.]
1888. Frederick Richards Wynne, D.D.
_Reid Professor of Penal Legislation, Constitutional
and Criminal Law, and the Law of Evidence._
[Founded 1888.]
1888. Richard Robert Cherry, LL.D.
_Auditor._
1890. Hewitt R. Poole, D.D.
_External Auditor._
1875. Amos M. Vereker.
_Librarian._
1887. Thomas K. Abbott. B.D., Sc.D.
_Assistant Librarian._
Thomas V. Keenan, M.A.
_Secretary of the Senate._
1890. George F. Shaw, LL.D.
*_Precentor._
1870. John P. Mahaffy, D.D., Mus. Doc.
*_Registrar of the Law School._
1877. Robert Russell, M.A.
*_Registrar of the School of Physic._
1879. Henry W. Mackintosh, M.A.
*_Registrar of the Engineering School_.
1880. George F. FitzGerald, M.A., Sc.D.
_Curator of the Museum._
Henry W. Mackintosh, M.A.
_Law Agent and Keeper of the Records._
John H. Nunn, M.A.
_Assistant to Registrar of University Electors._
Charles Henry Miller, M.A.
_Accountant._
A. Grahame Bailey.
_Organist._
Sir Robert P. Stewart, Mus. Doc.
_Choristers._
Benjamin Mullen, John Hemsley, T. Grattan Kelly,
Thomas Gick, Mus. Doc.; Walter Bapty, William S. North,
Melfort D’Alton, Benjamin Mullen jun., M.A.
[Illustration: (Decorative section ending)]
MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
THE PROVOST.
David Richard Pigot, M.A. } Elected by
Rev. Joseph Carson, D.D. } the _Classis_
Rev. Samuel Haughton, M.D. } _Prima_
John K. Ingram, LL.D. } (1891).
Rev. James William Barlow, M.A., _Secy._} Elected by
Anthony Traill, LL.D., M.D. } the _Classis_
Francis A. Tarleton, LL.D. } _Secunda_
Robert Y. Tyrrell, M.A. } (1888).
Edmund T. Bewley, LL.D. } Elected by
Edward Dowden, LL.D. } the _Classis_
Edward H. Bennett, M.D. } _Tertia_
Ed. Perceval Wright, M.D. } (1889).
The Rev. John Gwynn, D.D. } Elected by
The Very Rev. Henry Jellett, D.D. } the _Classis_
Sir Robert S. Ball, LL.D. } _Quarta_
George F. FitzGerald, M.A. } (1890).
Every fourth year the members elected by one of the _Classis_
retire. The election for four representatives of the _Classis
Secunda_ will take place on the 28th October, 1892.
The Council nominate to all Professorships, except those the
nomination of which is vested in some other body or persons by Act
of Parliament, or by the directions of private founders, and except
also the following Professorships in the School of Divinity; that
is to say, the Regius Professorship of Divinity, Archbishop King’s
Lecturership in Divinity, and the Professorship of Biblical Greek.
Such nominations shall be subject to the approval of the Provost
and Senior Fellows.
In the event of the said Provost and Senior Fellows refusing their
approval to the nomination of the Council, the Chancellor shall
decide whether the grounds for such refusal are sufficient. If
they shall appear to him to be insufficient, he shall declare the
person nominated by the Council duly elected; if not, the Council
shall proceed to a fresh nomination. If no election shall take
place within the space of six calendar months from the date of the
vacancy, or from the time of the creation of any new Professorship,
the right of nomination and election for the purpose of filling up
such vacancy, or of appointing to such new Professorship, shall
lapse to the Chancellor. No person, being at the time a member of
the Council, shall be nominated by the Council to any Professorship.
And, except so far as is otherwise provided by Act of Parliament,
or by direction of private founders, any proposed new rules or
regulations respecting Studies, Lectures, and Examinations, save
and except any Studies, Lectures, or Examinations in relation to
or connected with the School of Divinity (with which the said
Council shall not have authority to interfere); and also any
proposed new rules or regulations respecting the qualifications,
duties, and tenure of office of any Professor in any Professorship
now existing, or hereafter to be constituted, except the
Professors and Professorships connected with the said School of
Divinity; and any proposed alterations in any existing rules or
regulations respecting such Studies, Lectures, and Examinations,
qualifications, duties, and tenure of office, save as aforesaid,
shall require the approval both of the Provost and Senior
Fellows, and of the Council. All such new rules or regulations,
and alterations in any rules or regulations, may be originated
either by the Provost and Senior Fellows or by the Council. No new
Professorship shall be created or founded by the Provost and Senior
Fellows without the consent of the Council.
[Illustration: (Decorative section ending)]
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]
ODE FOR THE TERCENTENARY FESTIVAL
OF
TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN,
BY
GEORGE FRANCIS SAVAGE-ARMSTRONG, M.A., LITT.D.[175]
I. 1.
The hallowed Light the Druid bore
Through darkness to our lonely Isle.
Locked in his heart his cryptic lore
Beneath the ruined altar-pile
Was quenched in dust. ’Mid Uladh’s hills 5
A clearer ray the Herdsman-Slave
Allured, as by the limpid rills
He mused above the Pagan’s grave,
Or, standing on the mountain-scaur,
Beheld the Angel of his Dream 10
Through sunlit flying storms afar
Fade into heaven, a phantom gleam.
His holier fire with sleepless hand,
By shadowed lake, in sheltering woods,
The Saints, while blood embathed their land, 15
Preserved amid its solitudes;
Or often from their silence rose,
And, strong in selfless ardour, sought
The Saxon heaths, the Alpine snows,
To preach the gentle rede the Celtic Herdsman
taught. 20
I. 2.
The rugged Chief in richer cell
The cresset hung by field or foam,
Where hermit pure in peace might dwell,
The exiled sage forget his home.
On islets of the inland seas, 25
On stormy cape, in valley lone,
Or folded deep in verdant leas,
The scattered haunts of Learning shone.
But ev’n the Norman’s victor palm,
By carven arch or soaring spire, 30
Could ill secure the cloistral calm,
And feebly guard the living fire.
What larger flame De Bicknor fed
The royal Edwards fanned in vain.
The lamp in Drogheda’s dimness dead 35
Not Sidney’s touch revived again.
And nowhere towered the sovereign shrine,
The central altar’s temple wide,
Till Loftus waved a wand divine,
And here by Edar’s Firth it rose in radiant
pride. 40
I. 3.
In the Earth’s exultant hour,
When the age-long twilight, shifting,
Showed, beneath its fringes lifting,
Rosy seas and realms of endless flower;
When high on new-found isle or continent 45
The roving seaman-warrior travel-spent
First the cross of Europe planted;
When in rapt expectancy
Men amid a world enchanted
Seemed to wander fancy-free, 50
Along our life’s horizon-bound
So bright a promise broke from underground;
In that delicious dawn
Here to her lasting home was Wisdom drawn,
Here her island-shrine was wrought, 55
Whence evermore, with armèd Night contending,--
In act, in labouring thought
One brilliance,--we our toil with hers unending
Might mingle; with her calm advance,
The conquests of her widening reign, 60
Her heavenward aims and ceaseless operance,
We too might drink the hope and reap the gain;
Might feel the vast elation, share
The peril of her conflict and the care,
The triumph and the dole, 65
All that doth exalt the human soul;
Arrayed in Learning’s panoply,
Refreshed from Truth’s pellucid springs,
Beneath her wide imperial wings
Might prosper with her boundless destiny, 70
Life and heavenly Freedom bearing
Where her might and dauntless daring
Strike the heart of Tyranny tame,
Or over Grossness steals the glamour of her name.
II. 1.
He who with heart unmoved can tread 75
The peaceful Squares, the pictured Halls,
Where first within his soul was shed
The Light that heals where’er it falls,
Where first he felt the sacred glow
Of young ambition fire his breast, 80
And watched a broadening Future grow
More gorgeous than the burning west--
The vision (ah, too soon to fade!)
Of splendours,--honour, virtue, truth,--
That o’er his life its magic laid, 85
And godlike purpose waked in youth;
He who with languid pulse can view
The scenes where first he quaffed the springs
Of Hope and Knowledge, whence he drew
The strength to soar with fearless wings, 90
Is void as night, is cold as clay,
Is dead in spirit, shrunk and sear ...
Hail, hail, ye walls and portals grey
With holiest memories wound,--we love you and revere!
II. 2.
Behold, the men are with us still 95
Who here have reaped immortal fame;
Their words, their varying fancies, thrill
Our hearts, their deeds our zeal inflame.
Yes, Ussher’s voice is in our ear,
It whispers from our waving trees; 100
And hark! blithe Congreve’s laughter clear
Is mingling with our harmonies;
And Farquhar’s jests around us fly,
Mementos of a merrier time;
And Swift is near, with piercing eye 105
And mouth of gall, who stung with rhyme
And crushed with iron clubs of prose;
And Berkeley, with his angel brow;
And Burke, who high as eagle rose;
And gentlest Goldsmith, jovial now 110
As when he lipped his flute in France;
And he who sang of Erin’s wrong
In lays that listening Time entrance;
Poet, priest, warrior, wit, smile on our jubilant
throng.
II. 3.
Mother, since the lion-Queen 115
Set thy name in jewelled story,
How the beam of Learning’s glory
Still has rested on our Island green,
O, fair as are the ruddy morns that rise
O’er her wild hills, and flush her stormy skies! 120
How thy sons, thy faiths upholding,
Victors, firm in peace or strife,
Toil, thy gifts of Truth unfolding,
Weave the web of human life!
Here in these shades, with straining sight 125
Through many a fretful day and weary night
Bent o’er the baffling page,
How have they won the wealth of seer and sage
Wrung from gloom with Titan-power,
Thou to the labouring mind thy lustres lending, 130
Till, armed with all thy dower,
From the lone chamber to the loud world wending,
They’ve ploughed the homely field and sown
The seed that bears a deathless grain;
Afar o’er belts of blustering ocean blown, 135
In lands of scathing sun and ruthless rain,
Have held the dusky hordes at bay,
And tempered empire with a softer ray;
Or, strong in battle, borne
Britain’s streaming banner pierced and torn 140
But trampled not by any foe;
Or, dauntless in a direr war,
Have wrested spoil from earth and star;
Till now, three centuries past of joy and woe,
We, our hope and youth renewing, 145
Here, the votive chaplet strewing,
At thy feet our homage lay,
Beneath a later Queen of happier, milder sway!
III. 1.
Guardian of Light, with pomp to-day
We celebrate thy splendour’s birth. 150
Lo, doomed in distant paths to stray,
And whirled about the chequered earth,
Back to thy peaceful fane we wend,
We bear thee gifts of love and praise,
Beneath thy sovereign brows we bend, 155
And high our echoing anthems raise.
From east and west, where’er the fire
Of Science, fenced by faithful hands,
Abides, and hearts of men aspire,
We greet the learned of other lands 160
Who seek across the alien seas
Our Island bright’ning ’mid her showers,
And come to spread before thy knees
Their garlands intertwined with ours;
While, close with these, a blithesome crowd, 165
Thy young-eyed votaries move along,
Breathe on the wind their raptures loud,
And mix their strains of joy with Age’s sombrer
song.
III. 2.
Aurora of the conquering Sun
Of Knowledge, scarer of the Night, 170
How nobly has thy race been run,
How fair the pageant of thy flight!
From every cloudy trammel freed,
With dreams of boundless venture fraught,
Billowing the shadows in thy speed, 175
Thou risest, robed in gleaming Thought.
The steeds of empyrean strain
The wafture of thy hand obey,
As, scattering fire from hoof and mane,
They flash o’er peak and field and spray. 180
Thick as the northern meteors sweep
Adown the clear autumnal skies,
Through airy dews o’er plain and steep
Thy florets fall in rainbow-dyes,
And where they rest take root and spread, 185
Till all the barren ways are sweet,
And all the desert-breezes shed
Their honeyed blossom-breath around the
wanderer’s feet.
III. 3.
Ever young and strong to dare,
Darkness to thy will subduing, 190
Thou, thy lustrous path pursuing,
Onward movest, girt with all things rare,--
Radiant in victory, from thine orient gate
Issuing with front to heaven and heart elate,
And in gorgeous triumph guiding 195
Through the deeps, a lucid throng,
Round the car Phœbœan gliding,
Forms ethereal. Art; and Song;
And mild Religion hand-in-hand
With fearless Reason,--loveliest of the band; 200
And, linked in circling train,
She who delights to roam the starry main,
Breaks the flesh’s narrowing bond,
And tracks the whirling suns amid their courses;
And She with potent wand 205
Who tames to kindlier use Earth’s deathful forces;
And She who cleaves the crust and solves
The secrets shut from mortal view;
And the witch Maid whose magic hand evolves
From Nature’s essence nature ever new; 210
And that all gentle Ministress
Who wars on pain and waits on weariness;
And She whose wreathen shell
Rings of Latian lawn or Dorian dell;
And the strong Spirit whose subtle skill 215
Controls the night of storms and takes
The lightning prisoner, or breaks
The cliff, or spans the flood, or moves the hill,--
Where the effulgent wheels are glancing,
O’er the shrunken mists advancing, 220
Follow in thy kindling way
Thee heavenward heralding the clear-eyed
golden Day.
IV. 1.
Our triumph is the victory
Of Thought, the Mind’s high festival.
Ah, cold and bleak at times will be 225
The mists of Doubt that round us fall;
And keen the wounds of him who wars
With Ignorance, the eyeless foe
That balks us with his girdling bars.
Our task is great, our labour slow; 230
And Truth is oft a maddening gleam
That mocks the eye in mazy flight;
And where the rays of promise teem
Earth’s Shadow moves across their light.
The ways are rough, the night is near, 235
The winds are loud in field and sky;
And Death awaits with levelled spear;
And wrecks of lives around us lie;
But blue-eyed Hope with bosom warm
Beside us stands serenely fair, 240
Lifts to the hills her snowy arm,
And bids us upward scale and still the Vast
to dare.
IV. 2.
Yes, frail of hand and faint of eye,
Our lives the glimmer of a wing
That glistens in the summer sky, 245
Shines and is gone,--in vain we cling
To Time, in vain we grasp the veil
That hides the mystic Source of All.
We strive; the founts of being fail;
The terrors of the Deeps appal; 250
Amid the dim uncertain shows
And symbols of the things that are
We falter; blinding vapour grows
About our paths; the pilot-star
Of Faith is folded from our sight; 255
Yet, still be ours the purpose pure,
For us to seek the larger Light,
To cope with Darkness and endure.
Arise, and following Her, whose face
Is radiant with the roseate day, 260
Explore the trackless realms of Space;
Hark to her rallying-cry, and fearlessly obey.
IV. 3.
Forward! Let the venturous Mind,
Still its spectral foes assailing,
Ridge on ridge of danger scaling, 265
Front its battle! What though, faint and blind,
We stumble through the stifling wilderness,
Though failure chill our hearts, though griefs oppress,
Rich hath been the Spirit’s treasure
Won by those whose story told 270
Makes the music of our pleasure
Ringing through these cloisters old.
Shall we not fight as they have fought,
And work as they with tireless brain have wrought?
O, follow still the fleet 275
Faint glint of Truth where’er it leads your feet;
Gather in with reverent toil
The sheaves of Knowledge wheresoever scattered
O’er whatsoe’er soil;
And dare the loneliest peak with tempest shattered 280
For any gladdening glimpse it yields
Of any unknown gulf or shore,
Purge the fair world of Ill through all its fields;
Uplift the Race in wisdom more and more;
With breast undaunted boldly range 285
The ever-widening ways of ceaseless Change;
Thwart not the powers that roll
Freedom’s chariot thundering to the goal;
Nor fly the Spirit’s pain; nor crave
The crutch of creeds foredone; nor fear 290
The New upon the Old to rear;
But Nature’s nobler life from bondage save;
Till, to flawless beauty moulded,
All her wealth of good unfolded
’Mid the beams of Liberty, 295
Earth into Eden break and bloom from sea to sea!
FOOTNOTE:
[175] The words, with Music by Professor Sir Robert Stewart, Mus.
Doc., have been published by Novello, Ewer & Co., London.
ANALYSIS OF THE ODE.
LINES 1-12.
The dawn of Learning in Ireland. The legendary visions of St.
Patrick, antecedent to his conversion to Christianity, while a
captive and a swineherd among the Ulster Hills.
LINES 13-20.
The cultivation and propagation of Christian philosophy and
religion by the early Irish monks, whose humble cells were reared
as described.
LINES 21-28.
The monasteries founded by the native-Irish chiefs.
LINES 29-32.
The statelier erections of the Anglo-Norman conquerors.
LINES 33-40.
The successive attempts (by Archbishop de Bicknor in 1320, Edward
III., Edward IV. at Drogheda in 1465, Sir Philip Sidney in
1568) to establish or develop a University in Ireland up to the
time of Queen Elizabeth, when the citizens of Dublin, under the
auspices of Archbishop Loftus, secured the final establishment
of the National University beside the shores of the “Firth of
Edar” (Dublin Bay, so called from the hero or heroine Edar, who
gave his or her name to its northern boundary and most striking
feature--Ben Edar, or Howth).
LINES 41-52.
The Elizabethan Age, with its varying hopes and achievements, the
propitious birth-date of the University.
LINES 53-74.
The purpose and appointed work of the University in the service
of Wisdom.
LINES 75-94.
The bond of union between Trinity College and its _alumni_.
LINES 95-114.
Representative great men whom the University has
produced--Ussher; Congreve and Farquhar, dramatists; Swift,
master of invective and sarcasm in prose and verse; Berkeley, the
idealist; Goldsmith; Moore, &c.
LINES 115-148.
The vast and multiform work actually accomplished by the
University, and the labours and triumphs of its sons, during the
three hundred years of its existence, from the reign of Queen
Elizabeth to the reign of Queen Victoria.
LINES 149-222.
Apostrophe to the University on its day of jubilee--the guardian
and precursor of the Light of Wisdom, the “Aurora of the Sun
of Knowledge,” followed and attended by the various Arts and
Sciences, typified by the Hours around the chariot of Phœbus.
(From line 195 to line 222 are personified the numerous branches
of Learning--Theological, Scientific, Artistic, Classical,
&c.--fostered by the University.)
LINES 223-296.
The true nature of the triumph celebrated. The battle of
Intellect with Darkness, waged and still to be waged. Exhortation
to continue the struggle with fearless resolution and
unconquerable hope.
[Illustration: (Decorative section ending)]
[Illustration: TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, 1892.]
[Illustration: (Decorative section heading)]
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS.
Abel, Sir Fredk. Aug., K.C.B., D.C.L., F.R.S.,
40, Cadogan Place, London.
Alexander, George J., J.P.,
Victoria House, Dalkey.
Alexander, Thomas, M.E., Professor of Engineering,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Allen, Rev. Alfred,
Fortess Road, London, N.W.
Allman, George, LL.D.,
St. Mary’s, Galway.
Anderson, Henry, LL.B.
Anderson, W., Q.C.,
22, Upper Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin.
Anderson, Rev. M. J.,
Hockering Rectory, East Dereham.
Andrews, The Hon. Mr. Justice, LL.D.,
51, Lower Leeson Street, Dublin.
Andrews, J. T., M.A.,
88, Lower Baggot Street, Dublin.
Ardilaun, The Right Hon. Lord,
St. Anne’s, Clontarf, Dublin.
Ashbourne, The Right Hon. Lord, LL.D., Q.C., Lord Chancellor
of Ireland,
23, Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin.
Askin, Rev. W. B., M.A.,
Harold’s Cross, Dublin.
Askin, Paul,
67, Northumberland Road, Dublin.
Atkinson, Robert,
Beaumont, Belfast.
Atkinson, Rev. A. W., M.A., Principal, Lawrence Asylum,
Ootacamund, Madras, India.
Austin, H. Evans, M.A., LL.D.,
6, Pump Court, Temple, London.
Bailey, A. G.,
55, Upper Mount Street, Dublin.
Balfour, The Right Hon. A. J., LL.D., M.P.,
4, Carlton Gardens, London, S.W.
Ball, The Right Hon. J. T., LL.D., D.C.L., P.C.,
Taney House, Dundrum, Co. Dublin.
Ball, Sir Robert Stawell, LL.D., F.R.S.,
The Observatory, Dunsink, Co. Dublin.
Ball, Valentine, LL.D., F.R.S., F.G.S., Director of Museum of
Science and Art, Dublin.
Beatty, Wallace, M.D.,
21, Lower Leeson Street, Dublin.
Beere, J. J., M.A., F.T.C.D.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Beevor, Rev. W. S.,
Somersham Vicarage, St. Ives.
Bennett, Joseph,
Blair Castle, Sundayswell, Cork.
Bennett, E. H., M.D., F.R.C.S.I.,
26, Lower Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin.
Bernard, Rev. John H., F.T.C.D.,
32, Lower Leeson Street, Dublin.
Best, Richard, Sch.T.C.D.,
25, Trinity College, Dublin.
Bewley, The Hon. Mr. Justice,
40, Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin.
Bigger, Francis Joseph,
Ardrie, Belfast.
Bluett, Rev. Richard Tenison, B.A.,
Carlingford.
Bolster, Rev. Canon,
The Rectory, Castlemartyr, Co. Cork.
Bourke, Rev. John H., M.A.,
Kilkenny.
Bowell, Rev. Wm., M.A.,
Sissinghurst Vicarage, Staplehurst.
Bowles, Spotswode Robert, M.A.,
54, Wellington Road, Dublin.
Boyd, W. H., J.P.,
Ballymacool, Letterkenny.
Brabazon, Lady Kathleen,
Kilruddery, Bray.
Bradshaw, Rev. W. H.,
7, Vernon Terrace, Booterstown, Co. Dublin.
Brambell, Samuel E.,
The Library, Trinity College, Dublin.
Brandon, Rev. A. O. B.,
206, Amherst Road, West Hackney, London.
Bredon, A. M., M.B.,
Millicent Terrace, Portadown.
Bridge, William, M.A.,
Millpark, Roscrea.
Brien, Charles H.,
54, South Richmond Street, Dublin.
Brien, Edward H., M.D.,
485, New Chester Road, Rock Ferry, Cheshire.
Brien, John W., J.P.,
Wilton House, Wilton Place, Dublin.
Brooks, H. St. John, M.D.,
52, Lower Mount Street, Dublin.
Brownlow, Rev. Duncan J., M.A.,
Ardbraccan, Navan.
Brownrigg, W. B.,
Moor Hill, Brannoxtown.
Bulmer, Richard, M.A.,
14, Marston Street, Iffley Road, Oxford.
Bunbury, Rev. Thomas, D.D., Dean of Limerick,
Limerick.
Burbidge, Frederick William, M.A., F.L.S., M.R.I.A., Curator
of College Botanic Gardens,
91, Haddington Road, Dublin.
Burgess, Rev. H. W., LL.D.,
Clonmore, Monkstown, Co. Dublin.
Burnes, Rodolph A. C., B.A., M.B., B.Ch.,
1, Conyngham Road, Dublin.
Burroughs, Rev. Wm. E., B.D.,
Kingstown.
Bute, The Most Hon. The Marquis of,
St. John’s Lodge, Regent’s Park, London, W.
Byrne, E. M.,
143, Strand Road, Merrion, Co. Dublin.
Byrne, Very Rev. James, Dean of Clonfert,
Ergenagh Rectory, Omagh.
Callwell, Nathaniel,
39, Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin.
Campbell, C. T.,
Vesey Place, Kingstown.
Campbell, Rev. R. S. D., D.D.,
The Rectory, Athlone.
Campbell, Very Rev. Theophilus, D.D., Dean of Dromore,
Lurgan.
Campbell, Arthur J., M.D.,
Rose Villa, Uley, Gloucestershire.
Carmichael, Rev. Canon, LL.D.,
10, Sallymount Avenue, Ranelagh, Dublin.
Carolin, Rev. Sinclair,
Wyvenhoe Rectory, near Colchester.
Carson, Rev. Joseph, D.D., Vice-Provost,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Carson, Rev. Thomas W., M.A.,
85, Harcourt Street, Dublin.
Carter, Rev. H. B., D.D.,
Derryloran Rectory, Cookstown.
Carton, R. P., Q.C.,
Rutland Square, Dublin.
Cathcart, Rev. Nassau,
Trinity Vicarage, Guernsey.
Chambers, George, J.P.,
12, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Charles, James,
61, Middle Abbey Street, Dublin.
Chatterton, The Right Hon. Hedges Eyre, LL.D., Vice-Chancellor
of Ireland,
Newtown Park Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin.
Chatterton, Rev. Eyre, B.D.,
Hazarabagh, Chota Nagpur, Bengal.
Chester, The Right Rev. William Bennett, D.D., Lord Bishop
of Killaloe,
Clarisford House, Killaloe.
Clare, Henry L.,
Ducie, Chapelton, Jamaica, West Indies.
Clarke, Rev. W. J., D.D.,
Limerick.
Classon, W. H., B.A.,
11, Trinity College, Dublin.
Clements, H. J.,
Killadoon, Celbridge.
Clibborn, William, M.D.,
Dorset House, Bridport, Dorset.
Clive, W. B.,
5, Carlyle Road, Cambridge.
Close, Rev. Maxwell H., B.A.,
Dublin.
Cochrane, Rev. J. H. D.,
Liscard Vicarage, Birkenhead.
Cochrane, Sir Henry, D.L.,
Woodbrook, Bray.
Cogan, The Right Hon. W. H. F., D.L.,
93, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Cole, Grenville A. J., F.G.S.,
2, Montrose, Cabra Road, Dublin.
Collins, A. Tenison,
Hibernian Bank, College Green, Dublin.
Colquhoun, David, Q.C.,
66, Lower Leeson Street, Dublin.
Cooke, John, B.A.
51, Morehampton Road, Dublin.
Cooke, Rev. John Digby, M.A., Chaplain of Female Orphan House,
North Circular Road, Dublin.
Cooper, Rev. J. Sisson, M.A.,
Killanne Rectory, Enniscorthy.
Corbett, Daniel, M.R.C.S.E.,
12, Clare Street, Dublin.
Corless, Thomas,
Burlington Hotel, St. Andrew Street, Dublin.
Cosgrave, Rev. W. F.,
The Vicarage, West Hartlepool.
Cotter, W. E. Pearson,
Balmoral, Belfast.
Cowan, S. W. P.,
Craigavad, County Down.
Craig, Rev. Herbert Newcome, B.A.,
Bandon, Co. Cork.
Craig, Thomas,
30, South Frederick Street, Dublin.
Craig, William J., M.A.,
Charleville House, West Kensington, London.
Crawley, W. J. Chetwode, LL.D., D.C.L.,
Châlet, Temple Road, Rathmines.
Creek, Ven. William, D.D., Archdeacon of Kilmore,
Kildallon, Ardlogher.
Creery, John T., M.D.,
Riverton, Coleraine.
Crowe, Rev. E. D., A.M.,
Drumkeeran, Carrick-on-Shannon.
Crozier, Rev. J. B., D.D.,
Holywood, Co. Down.
Culverwell, Edward P., M.A., F.T.C.D.,
40, Trinity College, Dublin.
Culwick, James C.,
28, Leeson Park, Dublin.
Cunningham, D. J., M.D., Professor of Anatomy,
Trinity College, Dublin.
D’Alton, Melfort C.,
9, Merrion Row, Dublin.
Dames-Longworth, Francis T.,
Glynwood, Athlone.
Dames, R. J. Longworth,
21, Herbert Street, Dublin.
Dane, Richard M., Barrister,
7, Percy Place, Dublin.
Darby, Very Rev. J. L., D.D., Dean of Chester,
The Deanery, Chester.
Darcus, Solomon H.,
Holywell Park, Dundrum, Co. Dublin.
Darley, His Honour, Judge,
Fernhill, Kilgobbin, Co. Dublin.
Darley, Miss,
14, Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin.
Daunt, Rev. Canon, M.A.,
Queenstown.
Davidson-Houston, Rev. B. C., M.A.,
51, Park Avenue, Sandymount, Dublin.
Davidson, Rev. J. H., M.A.,
The Rectory, Batterstown, Co. Meath.
Davis, Sydenham,
Richmond Park, Monkstown, Co. Dublin.
Davis, Rev. Wm. Sampson, M.A.,
Embleton Vicarage, Cockermouth.
Dawson, Ven. Abraham, Archdeacon of Dromore,
Seagoe Rectory, Portadown.
Day, Rev. Maurice, M.A.,
Killiney, Co. Dublin.
Day, Robert, J.P., F.S.A.,
Sidney Place, Cork.
Deane, Joseph W.,
Longraigue, Foulkes Mills, Wexford.
Deed, Rev. John George, D.D.,
St. Germain’s, St. Albans, Herts.
Dixon, A. Francis, B.A.,
17, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin.
Dixon, Henry H., B.A.,
17, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin.
Dixon, W. V., B.A.,
82, Waterloo Road, Dublin. (_Two copies._)
Dixon, W. M., LL.B.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Dobbin, Francis William, B.A., M.B.
Dobbin, Rev. Frederick, A. M.,
Carrigrohane Rectory, Cork.
Dobbin, Samuel.
Dobbin, William Sinclair, B.A., M.B.
Dobson, James, T.C., J.P.,
St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Doherty, Rev. A. Percival, M.A., T.C.D.,
Oakridge Vicarage, Stroud, Gloucestershire.
Dorey, Matthew,
8, Berkeley Road, Dublin.
Dowden, Right Rev. John, Lord Bishop of Edinburgh,
Lynn House, Edinburgh.
Downing, A. M. W.,
74, Vanbrugh Park, Blackheath, London.
Doyle, C. F.,
19, Kildare Street, Dublin.
Drapes, Rev. Lambert, B.D.,
Newtownbarry. (_Three copies._)
Drury, James W., M.A.,
The Willows, Terenure, Dublin.
Dudgeon, H. J., J.P.,
The Priory, Stillorgan.
Dudgeon, W. J., B.A.,
Chapelizod, Co. Dublin.
Duignan, W. H.,
St. Ronan’s, Walsall.
Duke, Rev. J. H., D.D.,
Craigavad, Belfast.
Duncan, James F., M.D.,
8, Upper Merrion Street, Dublin.
Durham University Library.
Dwyer, Mrs.,
Belvedere, Lisburn.
Dwyer, Rev. Philip, M.A.,
Huntspill Rectory, High Bridge, Somerset.
Eason, Charles, jun.,
80, Middle Abbey Street, Dublin.
Eaves, Rev. James,
Heavitree, Exeter.
Edgeworth, Rev. Essex, B.A.,
Kilshrewly, Edgeworthstown.
Edgeworth, Rev. F. G.,
Oxford.
Edwards, Charles Grey, M.B.,
11, Castle Street, Beaumaris, Anglesey.
Ellis, W. E., M.A., LL.B.,
39, Pembroke Road, Dublin.
Ellis, W. H. M., M.A. (Cantab),
University Club, Dublin.
Emanuell, Barrow,
36, Orsitt Terrace, Hyde Park, London.
Ewart, Sir Wm. Quartus, Bart.,
Schomberg, Strandtown, Belfast.
Ewart, R. H.,
New York.
Falconer, John B., LL.D.,
44, Merrion Square East, Dublin.
Falkiner, C. L., M.A.,
36, Molesworth Street, Dublin.
Falls, Thomas,
33, Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin.
Fausset, Rev. Andrew R., D.D.,
St. Cuthbert’s Rectory, York.
Fayle, Gerald S., B.A.,
10, South Circular Road, Dublin.
Field, Rev. H. S.,
35, Alwyn Villas, Canonbury, London, N.
Figgis, Edward K.,
New York.
Figgis, Wm. F.,
New York.
Figgis, Edmund J.,
Glen-na-Smoil, Upper Rathmines, Dublin.
Figgis, Samuel, J.P.,
104, Grafton Street, Dublin.
Figgis, T. F., LL.B.,
Newlands, Bray.
Finny, John Magee, M.D., President, Royal College of Physicians,
Dublin.
Fitzgibbon, Right Hon. Justice, A.B.,
10, Merrion Square, Dublin.
FitzGerald, C. E., M.D.,
27, Upper Merrion Street, Dublin. (_Two copies._)
FitzGerald, Rev. Wm., M.A.,
Grange Con, Co. Wicklow.
FitzGerald, Edward, B.A.,
24, Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin.
Fleming, Very Rev. Horace Townsend, D.D., Dean of Cloyne,
Deanery, Cloyne.
Forster, Major,
63, Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin.
French, Thos. Henry,
Trinity College Library, Dublin.
French, J. A., LL.D.,
7, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Fry, M. W. J., M.A., F.T.C.D.,
37, Trinity College, Dublin.
Galway, Rev. Canon W. J., LL.D.,
24, Summer Hill, St. Luke’s, Cork.
Gardner, Robert, J.P.,
Ashley, Clyde Road, Dublin.
Garvey, John,
Riverslade, Ballina, Co. Mayo.
Gaussen, Perceval C., B.A.,
13, Warrington Place, Dublin.
Geale-Wybrants, W., M.A., J.P.,
45, Raglan Road, Dublin.
Gibbons, Joseph,
23, North Frederick Street, Dublin.
Gibbs, Charles,
Wicklow Street, Dublin.
Gibson-Black, Mrs.,
Blackheath, Clontarf, Dublin.
Gibson, J. Surgeon-Captain, Medical Staff,
Jubbulpore, Central Provinces, India.
Gilbert, Rev. F. W. Pakenham,
The Church House, Dewsbury, Yorks.
Gillespie, T. R., M.D.,
Addabari, Balipara P.O., Tezpur, Assam.
Gillmor, Rev. W. G., M.A.,
Dunmore East, Waterford.
Gilmore, John E., M.A.,
Fairy Hill, Bray.
Gilmore, John, LL.D.,
8, Herbert Street, Dublin.
Gladstone, J. H., Ph.D., F.R.S., F.C.S.,
17, Panbridge Square, London.
Glenn, J. Barber,
67, Parkhurst Road, Holloway, London, N.
Glenn, W. B.,
67, Parkhurst Road, Holloway, London, N.
Goodman, Rev. James, M.A., Professor of Irish,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Gordon, Thomas, M.A.,
The Royal School, Armagh.
Gordon, S., M.D.,
13, Hume Street, Dublin.
Gordon, T., M.B.,
21, Harcourt Street, Dublin.
Gort, Right Hon. Viscount,
1, Portman Square, London.
Gould, Edmund J., D.L.,
10, Longford Terrace, Monkstown, Co. Dublin.
Governors of Armagh Public Library,
Armagh.
Graham, Rev. Charles J., B.D.,
Celbridge.
Graham, Rev. G. R., B.A.,
Portarlington.
Graves, Right Rev. Charles, D.D., Lord Bishop of Limerick,
The Palace, Henry Street, Limerick.
Gregg, Right Rev. Robert Samuel, D.D., Lord Bishop of Cork,
Cloyne, and Ross,
The Palace, Cork.
Greene, Surgeon-Major J. J.,
16, Clare Street, Dublin.
Greene, Very Rev. W. C., Dean of Christ Church, Dublin,
49, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Greene, Thomas, M.A.,
49, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Grierson, Rev. F. J., A.B.,
The Rectory, Oldcastle, Meath.
Griffith, Rev. George C.,
Parsonage, Castledermot, Co. Kildare.
Griffith, J. P., C.E.,
Temple Road, Rathmines, Dublin.
Gwynn, Rev. John, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity,
Trinity College, Dublin. (_Two copies._)
Hamilton, Mrs. Thomas,
16, Appian Way, Dublin.
Hamilton, Right Hon. Ion Trant, P.C., D.L.,
Abbotstown House, Castleknock, Co. Dublin.
Hamilton, Edwin, M.A.,
97, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Hamilton, Henry A.,
Hampton, Balbriggan.
Hammond, Rev. J., D.D,
14, Old Helvet, Durham.
Hanan, Rev. Denis, D.D.,
Tipperary.
Hanna, W. W.,
52, North Front Street, Philadelphia, U.S.A.
Harden, Henry, LL.B.,
84, Lower Gloucester Street, Dublin.
Harden, John M., Sch.T.C.D.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Harding, Rev. Canon, M.A.,
The Vicarage, Gilford, County Down.
Harkin, C. F., M.B.,
Chiltern, Victoria, Australia.
Harley, Rev. Canon, M.A.,
3, Belgrave Place, Cork.
Hart, H. C.,
Carrablagh, Croaghross, Letterkenny.
Hart, Geo. Vaughan,
14, Lower Pembroke Street, Dublin.
Hartrick, Rev. Edw. J., Precentor,
Ballynure Rectory, Belfast.
Hatchell, John, D.L.,
Fortfield House, Terenure, Dublin.
Haughton, Rev. Samuel, M.D., S.F.T.C.D.,
12, Northbrook Road, Dublin.
Haughton, S. Wilfred,
Greenbank, Carlow.
Haydn, Rev. Canon, LL.D., T.C.D.,
Nantenan Glebe, Askeaton, Co. Limerick.
Hayes, William,
12, Grafton Street, Dublin.
Hemphill, Edward,
29, Trinity College, Dublin.
Hemphill, Charles G. Cathcart, B.A.,
11, Ely Place, Dublin.
Hemphill, Rev. Professor,
Rectory, Westport, Co. Mayo.
Hemsley, John,
62, Wellington Road, Dublin.
Hime, Maurice C., M.A., LL.D.,
Foyle College, Londonderry.
Hinkson, H. A., Sch. and B.A., T.C.D.,
7, Trinity College, Dublin.
Hipwell, Lieut.-Colonel A. G., M.A.,
Army Service Corps, Devonport.
Hodges, R. W., M.D.,
Queenstown, Co. Cork.
Hogan, C. H.,
Sleedagh House, Murrintown, near Wexford.
Holmes-Forbes, A. W., M.A.,
15, Barton Street, West Kensington, London, W.
Hopkins, William,
Nassau Street, Dublin.
Horgan, D.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Houston, Arthur, LL.D., Q.C.,
52, Fitwilliam Square W., Dublin.
Hughes, W. G.,
4, Hampton Terrace, Lisburn Road, Belfast.
Hughes, Rev. S. C., M.A., LL.D.,
13, Adelaide Road, Dublin.
Hurst, Rev. F., A.M.,
St. Margaret’s Vicarage, Fivemiletown.
Ingram, John K., LL.D., S.F.T.C.D.,
38, Upper Mount Street, Dublin.
Irwin, Rev. Benjamin, B.A.,
Kilconnell Rectory, Ballinasloe.
Irwin, Rev. C. K., D.D.,
Derrynoose Rectory, Keady.
Irwin, Rev. Henry, B.A.,
Newtown, Mountkennedy.
Iveagh, The Right Hon. Lord,
80, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin. (_Two copies._)
Jackson, James,
Palmerston Park, Rathmines, Dublin.
James, Rev. George,
St. Michael’s Rectory, Gloucester.
Jeffares, Rev. Danby, M.A.,
The Vicarage, Lusk.
Jellett, Very Rev. Henry, D.D., Dean of St. Patrick’s, Dublin,
The Deanery, Kevin Street.
Jellett, Hewitt Poole, Q.C., Sergeant-at-Law,
32, Upper Pembroke Street, Dublin.
Jellett, W. M., B.A.,
92, Lower Leeson Street, Dublin.
Jemison, Rev. W. H.,
Stillington Vicarage, Easingwold, Yorks.
Jennings, Rev. J. A., M.A.,
Navan.
Johnson, W. Forbes, Q.C.,
Tullylost, Kildare.
Johnson, W.,
Clonony, Banagher.
Johnston, Rev. A. E., B.D.,
St. Paul’s Divinity College, Allahabad, North-West Provinces,
India.
Johnston, F. Boyd,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Johnston, Rev. H. F., A.M.,
Merrion Road, Dublin.
Johnston, J. P., M.A., T.C.D., and B.A., Cantab,
Churchtown, Co. Dublin.
Johnston, W. Ker, LL.B.,
Churchtown, Co. Dublin.
Joly, John, C.E.,
39, Waterloo Road, Dublin.
Jones, Rev. L. Wynne, M.A.,
Llanmynech Rectory, Oswestry.
Joy, Rev. Henry, D.D.,
Gretford Rectory, Stamford, England.
Joynt, Albert, M.A.,
43, Merrion Square, Dublin.
Joynt, William Lane, J.P., D.L.,
43, Merrion Square East, Dublin.
Kavanagh, Michael,
40, Stephen’s Green East, Dublin.
Keenan, Thomas V., M.A.,
Trinity College Library, Dublin.
Kelly, His Honour Judge,
34, Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin.
Kelly, G. Newenham, M.A.,
Roscommon.
Kelly, W. E., J.P.,
St. Helen’s, Westport.
Kemmis, Thomas, M.A.,
Bellevue Place, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary.
Kennedy, William, Sch.T.C.D.,
28, Trinity College, Dublin.
Kenney, Plunkett,
24, Suffolk Street, Dublin.
Kenny, William, Q.C.,
35, Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin.
Kidd, Rev. R., B.A.,
Rathvilly, Co. Carlow.
Kinahan, Thomas W., M.A., T.C.D.,
24, Waterloo Road, Dublin.
King, Gilbert,
Jamestown, Drumsna.
King, William,
Bray.
King’s Inns, The Hon. Society of,
Dublin.
Kingstone, Alexander,
Mosstown, Longford.
Knox, The Most Rev. Robert, D.D., Lord Archbishop of Armagh and
Primate of All Ireland,
The Palace, Armagh.
Lamb, W., LL.D.,
31, Grosvenor Place, Rathmines, Dublin.
Large, Rev. W. Somerville,
Carnalway Rectory, Kilcullen, Co. Kildare.
Lawlor, Rev. H. J.,
8, Clarinda Park East, Kingstown, Co. Dublin.
Lawrenson, Harman L., M.D.,
Dunlavin, Co. Wicklow.
Leech, Henry Brougham, LL.D., Regius Professor of Laws in University
of Dublin,
Yew Park, Clontarf, Co. Dublin.
Leeper, Alexander,
Trinity College, Melbourne.
Leeper, Rev. Canon, D.D.,
7, Upper Pembroke Street, Dublin.
Lett, Rev. H. W.,
Aghaderg Glebe, Loughbrickland, Co. Down.
Lewis-Crosby, Rev. E. C., B.D.,
83, Ranelagh Road, Dublin.
Lindesay, Rev. Wm. O’N., M.A.,
Baronscourt, Newtownstewart.
Little, Rev. E. G. H.,
All Saints’, Inverary, Argyleshire, N.B.
Littledale, Richard W. W., LL.D.,
23, Upper Mount Street, Dublin.
Liverpool Free Public Library,
William Brown Street.
Livingstone, Rev. Robert G., M.A.,
Pembroke College, Oxford.
Lockwood, Crosby,
7, Stationers’ Hall Court, London.
Long, Rev. Thomas, M.A.,
16, Appian Way, Dublin.
Low, Rev. John, B.D.,
Bansha, Tipperary.
Lunham, Col. T. A.,
Ardfallen, Douglas, Co. Cork.
Luther, Edward L., M.D.,
Lennox Street, Maryborough, Queensland, Australia.
Maccartney, Very Rev. H. B., Dean of Melbourne,
The Deanery, Melbourne, Australia. (_Four copies._)
MacIvor, James,
King’s Inns Library, Dublin.
Macintosh, Professor H. W.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Mack, Rev. A. W. Bradshaw, B.A.,
Swords, Co. Dublin.
MacManus, Rev. W.,
Somerby Vicarage, Oakham.
Macran, Henry S., B.A.,
30, Trinity College, Dublin.
Macrory, R. A., A.B., T.C.D.,
Eia, Belfast.
Macrory, Edmund, M.A., Q.C.,
7, Fig Tree Court, Temple, London.
Madden, Right Hon. D. H., Q.C., M.P.,
41, Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin.
Maffett, Rev. R. S.,
19, Wellington Place, Clyde Road, Dublin.
Magee College Library,
Derry.
Mahony, William A.,
74, Morehampton Road, Dublin.
Malet, J. C., M.A.,
Carbery, Silchester Road, Kingstown.
Manchester Public Library.
Marchant, Charles G., Mus. Bac.,
41, Palmerston Road, Rathmines, Dublin.
Marchant, John,
10, Dagmar Road, Camberwell, London, S.E.
Martin, E. D., J.P.,
Killoskehane Castle, Templemore.
Martin, Surgeon Lieutenant-Colonel J. W. O’M., M.B.
United Service Club, Dublin.
Matheson, C. L., M.A.,
20, Fitzwilliam Square South, Dublin.
Matson, J. Agar, B.A., M.D.,
St. John’s Park, Upper Holloway, London.
Mattinson, W. E.,
16, Trinity College, Dublin.
Maunsell, Henry W., M.A., M.D.,
37, Stanhope Gardens, Queen’s Gate, London.
Mayne, E. J., B.A.,
17, Herbert Street, Dublin.
Meredith, Richard E.,
49, Upper Mount Street, Dublin.
Meredyth, Rev. F., M.A.,
Crecora, Limerick.
Miller, Hon. Judge,
6, Rutland Square East, Dublin.
Miller, Sir Alex. Edward.
Miller, Rev. R. M., M.A.,
Mitchelstown.
Miller, Charles H., M.A.,
Hazlehurst, Glenageary, Kingstown.
Minchin, H., M.B.,
56, Dominick Street, Dublin.
Moffett, T. W., LL.D., President of Queen’s College,
Galway.
Mollan, Lieut.-Colonel William Campbell, C.B.,
Newtown House, Thomastown.
Monahan, Rev. James Hunter, D.D.,
44, Rutland Square, Dublin.
Montgomery, H. de F., M.A. Oxon,
Blessingbourne, Fivemiletown.
Montgomery, James,
Derry. (_Three copies._)
Mooney, Edmund, B.A.,
Elm Green, Blanchardstown.
Moore, Joseph Fletcher, M.A.,
Manor, Kilbride, Co. Wicklow.
Moore, William, Sch.T.C.D.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
More, A. G., F.L.S., M.R.I.A.,
74, Leinster Road, Dublin.
Morgan, Thomas,
35, Grand Parade, Cork.
Moriarty, Very Rev. Thomas, D.D., Dean of Ardfert,
Drishane Rectory, Millstreet, Co. Cork.
Moriarty, Matthew D., M.D., Surgeon-Major I.M.S.,
Meerut, N.W. Provinces, India.
Morley, Rev. T. V., M.A.,
23, Pembroke Road, Dublin.
Moses, Marcus Tertius,
Kilbride Tower, Herbert Road, Bray.
Murdock, Rev. James C., M.A.,
12, Trafalgar Terrace, Monkstown, Co. Dublin.
Murray, W. B.,
39, North Strand, Dublin.
M‘Bride, Robert,
Gilford, Co. Down.
“M. C.”
M‘Cann, Thomas S., Sch. and B.A., T.C.D.,
84, Harcourt Street, Dublin.
MacCarthy, John George, Land Commissioner,
19, Ailesbury Road, Dublin.
M‘Carte, James,
51, St. George’s Hill, Everton, Liverpool.
M‘Clelland, Rev. Thomas,
Foochow, China.
M‘Creery, Rev. W. J.,
Stamer Street, Dublin.
M‘Cutchan, Rev. George, M.A., B.D.,
Kenmare.
MacDermott, Joseph E., B.A.,
64, Mountjoy Square, Dublin. (_Two copies._)
MacMaster, George, M.A., J.P.,
Simmonscourt, Dublin.
M‘Neile, Rev. N. F.,
Brafferton Vicarage, Helperby, York.
National Library,
Dublin.
Neligan, Rev. M. R., M.A.,
Chilworth Street, London, W.
Neville, W. N., B.A., M.D.,
Southville, Bristol.
Newland, Rev. Arthur,
3, West Park Villas, Southampton.
Nicholson, Rev. J. N., M.A., T.C.D.,
170, Osborne Road, Forest Gate, London, E.
Norman, L. A. Lee, D.L., J.P.,
Corbollis, Ardee, Ireland.
Norman, Robert G.,
16, Kenilworth Square, Rathgar, Dublin.
O’Connell, John Robert, LL.B.,
Mountjoy Square, Dublin.
O’Dwyer, M., Surgeon-Major,
Jullundur City, Punjaub, India.
O’Grady, Standish,
Carrig, Queenstown.
O’Keeffe, Dixon C.,
Richmond House, Templemore, Co. Tipperary.
Oldham, C. H., B.A.,
116, Grafton Street, Dublin.
Oliver, Rev. Dr.,
Garston Vicarage, Aigburth, Liverpool.
Ormsby, Rev. Edwin R., M.A.,
Rectory, Hartlepool.
Ormsby, Rev. W. K.,
Summerside, Chislehurst, Kent.
Orpen, J. R., B.A.,
St. Leonard’s, Killiney, Co. Dublin.
Orr, Rev. A. B.,
Denby Vicarage, Huddersfield.
O’Sullivan, Right Rev. James, D.D., Lord Bishop of Tuam,
The Palace, Tuam.
Palles, Right Hon. Christopher, LL.D., P.C., Lord Chief Baron
of the Exchequer,
28, Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin.
Palmer, Rev. Henry, A.M.,
Eirènè, Killiney, Dublin.
Parker, Rev. Canon J. F., A.M.,
Rectory, Kilmacthomas.
Parker (James) & Co.,
Oxford.
Parry, Wm. Kaye, M.A., B.E.,
6, Charlemont Terrace, Kingstown.
Patrick, Rev. T., M.A.,
30, Grove Street, Liverpool.
Patton, Alexander, A.B., M.B., T.C.D.,
Farnham House, Finglas.
Peacocke, Charles, J.P.,
Belmont, Wexford.
Peacocke, Rev. Canon J. F., D.D.,
6, Belgrave Square South, Monkstown, Co. Dublin.
Peet, S. V.,
Evergreen Lodge, Ballybrack, Co. Dublin.
Pennell, Rev. C. H.,
Stadhampton Vicarage, Wallingford, Berks.
Perry, George,
81, Harcourt Street, Dublin.
Phillips, H. H., M.D.,
45, London Road, Reading.
Pigot, David R., Master of the Court of Exchequer,
Churchtown House, Dundrum, Co. Dublin.
Pitt, Arthur Percy, Sch.T.C.D.,
30, Trinity College, Dublin.
Plunket, His Grace the Most Rev. Lord, D.D., Lord Archbishop
of Dublin,
The Palace, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Plunket, Right Hon. David Robert, LL.D., Q.C., M.P. for Dublin
University,
12, Mandeville Place, London, W.
Plunkett, Wm. George, C.E.,
2, Zion Terrace, Rathgar, Dublin.
Pollock, James F., A.M., M.D., T.C.D.,
Avoca House, Blackrock, Dublin.
Poole, Rev. Hewitt R., D.D., S.F.T.C.D.,
15, Lower Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin.
Pooler, Rev. J. T., D.D., Canon of St. Patrick’s, Dublin,
Rectory, Newtownards.
Pope, Henry Brougham, M.D.,
The Hollies, Kington, Herefordshire.
Porter, Sir George H., Bart., Surgeon to the Queen in Ireland, &c.,
3, Merrion Square, Dublin.
Potter, Rev. Beresford,
Wellesbourne, Warwick.
Powell, G. W., M.B.,
272, Hagley Road, Birmingham.
Powell, Rev. W.,
St. Crispin’s Vicarage, Southwark Park Road, London.
Power, James Talbot, D.L.,
Leopardstown Park, Co. Dublin.
Powerscourt, The Right Hon. Viscount,
Powerscourt Castle, Enniskerry, Co. Wicklow.
Pratt, Rev. Precentor, M.A.,
Durrus, Co. Cork.
Pratt, Rev. J., D.D.,
3, St. James’ Terrace, Clonskeagh, Dublin.
Prenter, J. R.,
Blessington Street, Dublin.
Preston, Thomas, M.A., F.R.U.I.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Prideaux, Rev. Walter C.,
St. Saviour’s Vicarage, 116, Hampton Road, Bristol.
Prior, H. W.,
Oakhurst, Leamington.
Purcell, His Honour Judge,
Harcourt Street, Dublin.
Purser, Frederick, M.A., F.T.C.D.,
Rathmines Castle, Dublin.
Purser, John, M.A.,
Queen’s College, Belfast.
Purser, Louis C., M.A., F.T.C.D.,
11, Harcourt Terrace, Dublin.
Quill, Albert W., M.A.,
42, Harcourt Street, Dublin.
Reeves, Very Rev. J. M., M.A., Dean of Ross,
Ross Carbery.
Reeves, Richard S.,
Rosendale, Shankill, Co. Dublin.
Reeves, Robert S., M.A.,
Merrion Square, Dublin.
Reichel, The Most Rev. Charles P., D.D., Lord Bishop of Meath,
Dundrum, Co. Dublin.
Reichel, H. R.,
University College of North Wales, Bangor.
Reid, J. Hamilton,
Holmston, Kingstown.
Revington, Geo., M.D.,
Central Asylum, Dundrum, Dublin.
Roberts, Rev. R. J., A.B.,
Kuper Island, Chemaines, British Columbia.
Roberts, W. R. Westropp, F.T.C.D.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Robertson, W. C. F., B.A.,
34, Trinity College, Dublin.
Robinson, C. Lowes, Sen. Mod., B.A., T.C.D.,
Lichfield Theological College, Lichfield.
Rogers, Henry S.,
Cliff Castle, Dalkey, Co. Dublin.
Rooney, James,
17, Suffolk Street, Dublin.
Rosse, Right Hon. Earl of,
Birr Castle, Parsonstown.
Ross, John, Q.C., LL.B.,
66, Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin.
Royal Library, The,
Windsor Castle.
Royal Dublin Society’s Library.
Royal Irish Academy,
Dublin.
Rutherford, Henry E., Sch.T.C.D.,
16, Trinity College, Dublin.
Rutherford, Rev. W. Gunion, M.A., LL.D.,
19, Dean’s Yard, London, S.W.
Ryan, John Henry, M.A.,
3, Lower Merrion Street, Dublin.
Salmon, Rev. George, D.D., D.C.L., F.R.S., Provost of Trinity College,
Provost’s House, Dublin. (_Two copies._)
Samuels, Arthur W., LL.D.,
29, Lower Baggot Street, Dublin.
Savage-Armstrong, G. F., M.A.,
1, Sydenham Villas, Bray. (_Two copies._)
Schoales, George, M.A.,
Pembroke Lodge, Bray.
Scott, Ven. J. G., M.A., Archdeacon of Dublin,
The Rectory, Bray.
Scott, W. R.,
19, Trinity College, Dublin.
Scovell, Miss,
10, Prince of Wales Terrace, Bray.
Scriven, W. B. B., M.D.,
33, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Scully, Vincent, B.A. Christ Church, Oxford,
Dublin.
Seaver, Rev. Jonathan,
St. Mary’s Vicarage, Peckham, London.
Seymour, Rev. John Hobart, M.A.,
Newcastle, Co. Down.
Shackleton, Rev. T.,
Broomy Hill, Hereford.
Shaw-Hamilton, Rev. R., D.D.,
The Rectory, Tynan, Co. Armagh.
Shaw, George Ferdinand, LL.D., S.F.T.C.D.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Sheehan, J. J., LL.B.,
93, Lower Baggot Street, Dublin.
Shirley, Paul Wm. Nassau,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Shone, Right Rev. Samuel, D.D., Lord Bishop of Kilmore,
Kilmore House, Cavan.
Silcock, A., Surgeon-Captain, Indian Medical Service.
Simpson, S., M.B.,
Northumberland House, Finsbury Park, London.
Slattery, James W., President Queen’s College,
Cork.
Smith, George Hill,
Killooney House, Armagh.
Smith, G. N.,
Duneske, Caher, Co. Tipperary.
Smith, Rev. R. Travers, D.D.,
Vicarage, Clyde Road, Dublin.
Smith, Walter G., M.D.,
34, Lower Baggot Street, Dublin.
Smyly, Philip Crampton, M.D., T.C.D., F.R.C.S.I.,
4, Merrion Square, Dublin.
Smyth, Brice, M.D.,
13, College Square East, Belfast.
Smythe, Rev. George C., M.A.,
Carnmoney, Belfast.
Spence, Miss,
23, Clarinda Park East, Kingstown.
Stack, Right Rev. Charles Maurice, D.D., Lord Bishop of Clogher,
Knockballymore, Clones.
Stanley, John, LL.B.,
40, Lower Leeson Street, Dublin.
Starkie, M. W. J., M.A., F.T.C.D.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Staveley, Rev. Robert,
The Vicarage, Killiney, Dublin.
Steele, Rev. J. H.,
Crom Castle, Newtownbutler.
Steele, Lawrence E., M.A.,
18, Crosthwaite Park, Kingstown.
Stewart, Sir Robert P., Mus. Doc.,
40, Upper Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin.
Stewart, Rev. Joseph A., M.A.,
Pond Park, Lisburn. (_Two copies._)
Stoney, Rev. R. B., D.D.,
Irishtown, Dublin.
Strasburg Imperial University.
Strickland, Rev. W. J., D.D.,
St. John’s Vicarage, East Dulwich Road, London, S. E.
Stuart, Lieutenant-Colonel Villiers,
Castletown, Carrick-on-Suir.
Stubbs, Rev. E. T.,
4, Springfield Place, Bath.
Stubbs, Henry, M.A., J.P.,
Danby, Ballyshannon.
Studdert, Rev. George,
Kildemock Rectory, Ardee, Co. Louth.
Sullivan, Sir Edward, Bart.,
Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin.
Supple, Rev. William Rathborne, B.D.,
8, Clyde Road, Dublin.
Swanzy, Rev. T. B., A.M.,
Greencastle, Co. Donegal.
Swift, Very Rev. Francis, M.A., Dean of Clonmacnois,
Mullingar.
Sykes, George H.,
17, Albert Square, Clapham Road, London.
Tait, Ven. Andrew, LL.D., Archdeacon of Tuam,
Moylough Rectory, Co. Galway.
Tagart, Rev. W. R.,
The Oaks Vicarage, Loughborough, Leicestershire.
Talbot-Crosbie, W. D.,
Mount Talbot, Roscommon.
Taylor, Rogers, W. G. T., M.D., &c.,
Verona, Oberon, New South Wales.
Thomas, W. J.,
Mullingar.
Thompson, Miss,
Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin.
Thompson, Wm., M.D.,
54, Stephen’s Green East, Dublin.
Thrift, William Edward, Sch.T.C.D.,
27, Trinity College, Dublin.
Tisdall, Miss,
Sunnyside, Clontarf, Dublin.
Tisdall, Rev. C. E., D.D., Chancellor of Christ Church,
22, Herbert Place, Dublin.
Tittle, Isaac, M.A., LL.D., T.C.D., B.L.,
St. Margaret’s, North Circular Road, Dublin.
Todd, W. F.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Torrance, Geo. W., M.A., Mus. Doc., T.C.D.,
Balaclava, Melbourne, Australia.
Townsend, Very Rev. W. C., D.D., Dean of Tuam,
Deanery, Tuam.
Townsend, Rev. J. H., D.D.,
St. Mark’s House, Tunbridge Wells.
Trench, Geo. F., B.A.,
Abbeylands, Ardfert, Co. Kerry.
Tuckey, Davys, B.A.,
23, Lower Pembroke Street, Dublin.
Tuthill, Alfred, M.B.,
Ashbourne, Derby.
Twigg, Rev. Canon, A.M.,
Swords, Co. Dublin.
University Club,
Dublin.
Vanston, Geo. T. B., M.A., LL.D.,
Hillden Park, Terenure.
Venables, Rev. W.,
The Vicarage, Scofton, Worksop.
Wade, Gustavus Rochfort,
28, Upper Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin.
Wade, Surgeon-Capt. George Augustus,
Medical Staff, Bray.
Waldron, Laurence A.,
58, Wellington Road, Dublin.
Walsh, Rev. O. W., B.A.,
Newton Tartullagh Rectory, Tyrrells Pass, Co. Westmeath.
Warren, Rev. Saml. P., A.M.,
Laragh, Balbriggan, Co. Dublin.
Warren, James W., M.A.,
39, Rutland Square, Dublin.
Waterhouse, Samuel S., J.P.,
Dame Street, Dublin.
Weldrick, George,
University Press, Trinity College, Dublin.
Welland, Right Rev. T. J., D.D., Lord Bishop of Down, Connor,
and Dromore,
Ardtullagh, Holywood, Co. Down.
Welland, Rev. C. W., B.A.,
Rochestown Avenue, Kingstown.
Went, Rev. James,
The Wyggeston School, Leicester.
Westropp, Thomas J., M.A.,
77, Lower Leeson Street, Dublin.
Whelan, Rev. Percy S., Ex-Sch., M.A., T.C.D., Warden of
St. Columba’s College,
Rathfarnham, Co. Dublin.
Whelan, W. B., Sch.T.C.D.,
40, Trinity College, Dublin.
White, Henry Kirke,
Abbeylands, Ballybrack, Co. Dublin.
White, Rev. Hill Wilson, D.D., LL.D., Warden and Chaplain of
Wilson’s Hospital,
Multyfarnham.
White, Rev. Newport J. D., B.D.,
Rathmines, Dublin.
Wilkins, Rev. George, M.A., F.T.C.D.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Wilkins, W., M.A., Head Master of High School of Erasmus Smith,
Harcourt Street, Dublin.
Williams, Rev. A. Acheson, Chaplain,
Bangalore, India.
Williamson, Benjamin, F.T.C.D.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Williamson, Rev. C. A., M.A.,
4, Wood Street, Longford, Hudderfield. (_Three copies._)
Wilson, Colonel,
Clane, Naas.
Wilson, George Orr,
Dunardagh, Blackrock, Co. Dublin.
Wilson, John, M.A.,
Streete, Rathowen.
Winter, James S.,
Agher, County Meath.
Winter, Richard, B.A.,
60, Upper Leeson Street, Dublin.
Wolseley, The Right Hon. Lord, K.C.B., LL.D, &c., &c., General
Commanding the Forces in Ireland,
Dublin.
Woollcombe, R. L., M.A., LL.D.,
14, Waterloo Road, Dublin.
Woods, W. St. Leger, J.P.,
Whitestown House, Balbriggan.
Worthington, Thomas B.,
County Asylum, Knowle, Fairharn, Hants.
Wright, Edward Perceval, M.D., Professor of Botany,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Wright, Rev. Charles H. H., D.D., Ph.D.,
44, Rock Park, Rockferry, Birkenhead.
Wright, Rev. Ernest A., M.A.,
Bridge Street, Banbridge, Co. Down.
Wright, Rev. C. T. H., D.D.,
33, Mespil Road, Dublin.
Wright, Rev. W. B., B.A.,
Athleague.
Yeates, S. M.,
2, Grafton Street, Dublin.
Zetland, His Excellency the Earl of, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
Viceregal Lodge, Dublin.
[Illustration: (Decorative section ending)]
[Illustration: (Decorative section heading)]
LIST OF DELEGATES AND GUESTS
EXPECTED TO BE PRESENT AT THE TERCENTENARY CELEBRATION IN JULY,
1892.
_The Board of Trinity College have subscribed for 275 copies, to be
presented to each of the following Delegates or Guests_:--
Abel, Sir F., F.R.S.,
40, Cadogan Place, London.
Acland, Prof. Sir H., Bart., K.C.B., F.R.S. (_Delegate_,
University of Oxford).
Adams, Prof. W. G., F.R.S.,
King’s College, London.
Alexander, Right Rev. W., D.D., Bishop of Derry and Raphoe,
The Palace, Londonderry.
Alma-Tadema, L., R.A.,
17, Grove End Road, London, N.W.
Anderson, W., F.R.S., Director-General of Ordnance, Woolwich,
Lesney House, Erith, Kent.
Armstrong, Lord, F.R.S., Memb. Inst. C.E.,
Cragside, Rothbury, Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Ashbourne, Lord, LL.D., Lord Chancellor of Ireland,
23, Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin.
Ashley, Prof. Wm. James, M.A. (_Delegate_, University of
Toronto),
Lincoln College, Oxford.
Baker, Sir B., F.R.S., K.C.M.G., Vice-Pres. Inst. C.E.,
2, Queen’s Square Place, London, S.W.
Baldwin, Prof. James, M.A., Ph.D. (_Delegate_, University of
Toronto),
_Care of_ Messrs. Lazard Frères et Cie., 17, Boulevard
Poissonière, Paris.
Balfour, Right Hon. A. J., M.P., F.R.S., LL.D.,
4, Carlton Gardens, London, S.W.
Ball, Valentine, LL.D., F.R.S., C.B.,
Museum of Science and Art, Kildare Street, Dublin.
Barff, H. E., M.A. (_Delegate_, University of Sydney),
_Care of_ the Agent-General for N.S.W., 5, Victoria Street,
Westminster.
Bavaria, the Duke Charles of,
Tegernsee, München, Bavaria.
Beare, Prof. Hudson (_Delegate_ of Adelaide).
Beaulieu, Leroy, Memb. de l’Inst.,
27, Avenue du Bois de Boulogne, Paris.
Beljame, Prof. (_Delegate_, Univ. de France),
_Care of_ M. Gréard, Recteur de l’Université de Paris,
en Sorbonne, Paris.
Bell, Sir I. Lowthian, Bart., F.R.S., Memb. Inst. C.E.,
Rounton Grange, Northallerton, Yorks.
Beöthig, Prof. Zsolt (_Delegate_ of Buda-Pesth).
Billings, J. S., M.D., Surgeon-General U.S.A. Army
(_Delegate_, University of Pennsylvania).
Blass, Prof. F., University of Kiel.
Blaydes, Rev. F. H. M., M.A.,
26, Vernon Terrace, Brighton.
Bonet-Maury, Prof. (_Delegate_, Univ. de France),
_Care of_ M. Gréard, Recteur de l’Université de Paris,
en Sorbonne, Paris.
Bonney, Prof. Rev. T. G., F.R.S., University College, London,
23, Denning Road, Hampstead, London, W.
Bouchard, Prof., Memb. de l’Inst. (_Delegate_, Univ. de France),
_Care of_ M. Gréard, Recteur de l’Université de Paris,
en Sorbonne, Paris.
Bowen, Right Hon. Lord Justice,
14, Albert Hall Mansions, Kensington Gore, London, S.W.
Boyd, Rev. Henry, D.D., Vice-Chancellor University of Oxford;
Principal Hertford College, Oxford
(_Delegate_, University of Oxford).
Bramwell, Sir F., Bart, F.R.S., Memb. Inst. C.E.,
5, Great George Street, London, S.W.
Briggs, Prof. Rev. C. A., D.D., Union Theol. Sem., N.Y.,
120, W. 93, New York.
Brioschi, Prof. F., Istituto di Scienze, Milan.
Brodrick, Hon. G. C., D.C.L., Warden of Merton College, Oxford.
Bryant, Thomas, M.D., President Royal College of Surgeons.
65, Grosvenor Street, Grosvenor Square, London.
Bryce, Prof. J., M.P., D.C.L. (_Delegate_, University of Oxford),
54, Portland Place, London.
Burbidge, F. W., M.A.,
Botanic Gardens, Ball’s Bridge, Dublin.
Burdon-Saunderson, Prof. J., M.D., F.R.S.,
64, Banbury Road, Oxford.
Burke, Sir Bernard, LL.D.,
Tullamaine House, Upper Leeson Street, Dublin.
Burton, Sir F. W., LL.D., Director of the National Gallery, London,
43, Argyll Road, Kensington, London.
Butcher, Prof. S. H., LL.D., University of Edinburgh,
27, Palmerston Place, Edinburgh.
Butler, Rev. H. M., D.D., Master of Trinity College,
Cambridge (_Delegate_, University of Cambridge).
Bywater, I., M.A.,
Exeter College, Oxford.
Castletown, Lord,
Granton Manor, Abbeyleix, Queen’s County.
Clark, Sir Andrew, M.D., F.R.S., President Royal College
of Physicians,
16, Cavendish Square, London, W.
Clifton, Prof. R. B., F.R.S., Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford,
Portland Lodge, Parktown, Oxford.
Colles, William, M.D., M.Ch.,
21, Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Copeland, R., Ph.D., Astronomer-Royal of Scotland,
University of Edinburgh.
Corson, Prof. Hiram, LL.D. (_Delegate_, Cornell University).
Creighton, Right Rev. M., D.D., Lord Bishop of Peterborough,
The Palace, Peterborough.
Cremona, Prof. L., University of Rome,
5, San Pietro in Vincoli, Rome.
Crookes, W., F.R.S.,
7, Kensington Park Gardens, Notting Hill, London, W.
Cunningham, Rev. J., D.D., LL.D., Principal, St. Andrews University,
St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews.
Dallinger, Rev. W. H., F.R.S.,
Ingleside, Lee, London, S.E.
Darwin, Prof. G. H., F.R.S.,
Newnham Grange, Cambridge.
Davidson, Prof. Rev. A. B., D.D.,
New College, Edinburgh.
De Ceuleneer, Prof. A. (_Delegate_, University of Ghent).
D’Hondt, Prof. V. (_Delegate_, University of Ghent).
De Jonquières, Admiral de Fauque, Memb. de l’Inst.,
Avenue Bugeaud, 2, Paris.
De Vere, Aubrey T., LL.D.
Donaldson, Principal James, LL.D.
(_Delegate_, University of St. Andrews).
Dowden, Right Rev. J., D.D., Bishop of Edinburgh,
Lynn House, Gillsland Road, Edinburgh.
Driver, Prof. Rev. S. R., D.D.,
Christ Church, Oxford.
Drummond, Rev. J., LL.D., Principal, Manchester New College,
Oxford.
Dufferin and Ava, Marquis of, LL.D., British Embassy, Paris
(_Delegate_, Royal University of Ireland).
Dyer, W. Thistleton, C.M.G., F.R.S., Director Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew.
Edgeworth, F. Y., M.A.,
Balliol College, Oxford.
Ellis, Robinson, LL.D.,
Trinity College, Oxford.
Erichsen, President J. E., F.R.S. (_Delegate_, University
College, London),
6, Cavendish Place, Cavendish Square, London, W.
Evans, Sir John, K.C.B., D.C.L., F.R.S.,
Nash Mills, Hemel Hempstead, Herts.
Farlow, Prof. W. G. (_Delegate_, Harvard University),
_Care of_ Messrs. Drexel, Morgan & Co., London.
Faucett, Hon. Peter, B.A. (_Delegate_, University of Sydney).
Ferguson, H. Linde (_Delegate_, University of New Zealand).
Ferguson, Prof. J., LL.D. (_Delegate_, University of Glasgow).
Ferrier, Prof. D., M.D., F.R.S., King’s College, London,
34, Cavendish Square, London, W.
Fitzgerald, Hon. Francis A., LL.D.,
50, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Flint, Prof. Rev. R., D.D.,
Johnstone Lodge, Craigmillar Park, Edinburgh.
Foster, Prof. M., Sec.R.S.,
Trinity College, Cambridge.
Froude, Prof. J. A., LL.D., University of Oxford,
5, Onslow Gardens, London, S.W.
Gairdner, Prof. W. T., M.D.,
9, The College, Glasgow.
Garnett, R., LL.D.,
British Museum.
Gaudenzi, Prof. Aug., Litt.D. (_Delegate_, University
of Bologna).
Geddes, Principal Sir W. D., LL.D. (_Delegate_, University
of Aberdeen).
Geikie, Sir A., F.R.S., Director-General of the Geological Survey,
England,
28, Jermyn Street, London, S.W.
Gibson, Right Hon John, M.A.,
38, Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin.
Gide, Prof. C., Les Facultés de Montpellier.
Gilman, President D. C. (_Delegate_, Johns Hopkins University).
Gladstone, J. H., F.R.S.,
17, Pembridge Square, London, W.
Glaisher, J. W. L., F.R.S.,
Trinity College, Cambridge.
Gomperz, Prof. Th., University of Vienna,
Wien, Reisner Strasse, 9a.
Gordan, Prof. P. (_Delegate_, University of Erlangen).
Graves, Rev. Robert P., LL.D.,
1, Winton Road, Dublin.
Grubb, Sir Howard, M.I., F.R.S.,
51, Kenilworth Square, Rathgar.
Gusserow, Prof. A., University of Berlin,
Roonstrasse 4, Berlin, N.W.
Hagerup, Professor F., LL.D. (_Delegate_, University
of Christiania).
Hall, Prof. I. H., Ph.D., Metropolitan Museum of Art, N.Y.
Hamilton, Rev. Thomas, D.D. (_Delegate_, Queen’s College,
Belfast).
Harland, Sir E. J., Bart., M.P.,
Baroda House, Kensington Palace Gardens, London, W.
Harris, J. Rendel, M.A., Clare College, Cambridge.
Hermann, Prof. L., University of Königsberg.
Hill, G. W., Ph.D.,
Naval Observatory, Washington.
Hodgkin, Thomas, D.C.L.,
Bank, S. Nicholas Square, Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Holden, Rev. H. A., LL.D.,
20, Redcliffe Sq., South Kensington, London, S.W.
Holland, Professor Thomas E., LL.D.,
All Souls’ College, Oxford.
Horsley, Victor, M.B., F.R.S.,
25, Cavendish Square, London, W.
Humphry, A. P., M.A., Esquire Bedell of Cambridge.
Humphry, Prof. Sir George M., F.R.S.,
Grove Lodge, Cambridge.
Hutchinson, J., F.R.S.,
15, Cavendish Square, London, W.
Ince, Rev. William, D.D.,
Christ Church, Oxford.
Irving, Henry,
Lyceum Theatre, Wellington Street, Strand, London, W.C.
Iveagh, Lord, LL.D.,
80, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
James, Prof. E. J., Ph.D. (_Delegate_, University
of Pennsylvania).
Janssen, Jules,
L’Observatoire, Meudon, Seine-et-Oise.
Jebb, Prof. R. C., Litt.D., M.P.,
Springfield, Newnham, Cambridge.
Johnson, Prof. Alexander, LL.D., Vice-Principal M‘Gill University
(_Delegate_, M‘Gill University),
_Care of_ Richard Johnson, M.A., 28, Trinity College, Dublin.
Johnston, W. J., M.A. (_Delegate_, University College of Wales,
Aberystwith).
Jones, Ven. T. B., D.C.L., Archdeacon of Kingston (_Delegate_,
Trinity College, Toronto).
Jones, Prof. W. Carey (_Delegate_, University of California).
Joret, Prof. (_Delegate_ of Academy of Aix).
Judd, Prof. J. W., F.R.S.,
Royal College of Science, South Kensington, London, S.W.
Kelvin, Lord, Professor, University of Glasgow, President R.S.
Kenyon, F. G., M.A.,
British Museum.
Kernan, James, Q.C. (_Delegate_, University of Madras),
56, Northumberland Road, Dublin.
Kidd, George H., M.D.,
58, Merrion Square, Dublin.
Kielhorn, Prof. Franz (_Delegate_, University of Göttingen).
Kocher, Prof. Th., University of Bern,
Villette 25, Bern.
Kollmann, Prof. J.,
University of Basle.
Knapp, Prof. (_Delegate_ of Strasburg).
Lafaye, Prof. Georges (_Delegate_, Univ. de France),
Rue Tournefort 43, Paris.
Lampertico, Prof. F.,
University of Padua.
Lanciani, Prof. R., University of Rome,
2, Via Goito, Rome.
Lannelongue, Prof. (_Delegate_, Univ. de France),
_Care of_ M. Gréard, Recteur de l’Université de Paris,
en Sorbonne, Paris.
Lecky, W. E. H., M.A., LL.D.,
38, Onslow Gardens, London, S.W.
Leighton, Sir Frederick, Bart., D.C.L., President R.A.,
2, Holland Park Road, London, W.
Leishman, Prof. W., M.D.,
11, Woodside Crescent, Glasgow.
Liveing, Prof. G. D., F.R.S.,
Newnham, Cambridge.
Lockyer, Prof. J. Norman, F.R.S.,
Royal College of Science, South Kensington, London, S.W.
Londonderry, Marquis of, LL.D.,
Londonderry House, Park Lane, London, W.
Lounsbury, Prof. T. R. (_Delegate_ of Yale University).
Lubbock, Sir John, Bart., LL.D., F.R.S.,
High Elms, Farnborough, Kent.
Mabilleau, Prof. (_Delegate_ of Caen).
Macalister, Prof. A., M.D., F.R.S. (_Delegate_, University
of Cambridge),
Torrisdale, Cambridge.
M‘Clintock, Admiral Sir Leopold, LL.D., F.R.S.,
8, Atherstone Terrace, Gloucester Road, London, S.W.
Macnamara, Rawdon, M.D.,
95, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Magrath, Rev. J. R., D.D., Provost of Queen’s College, Oxford.
Marsh, Prof. O. C. (President and _Delegate_, National Academy
of Sciences of America),
Yale University.
Marshall, Prof. D. H., M.A. (_Delegate_, Queen’s University,
Kingston, Canada).
Martens, T. T., D.C.L., Privy Councillor (_Delegate_, University
of St. Petersburg).
Martineau, Rev. James, D.D.,
35, Gordon Square, London, W.C.
Masson, Prof. D., LL.D. (_Delegate_, University of Edinburgh),
58, Great King Street, Edinburgh.
Mathew, Right Hon. Justice, LL.D.,
46, Queen’s Gate Gardens, London, S.W.
Maurer, A., Rector University of Lausanne (_Delegate_, University
of Lausanne).
Mayor, Rev. Joseph B., M.A.,
Queensgate House, Kingston Hill, Surrey.
Meade, Right Hon. Joseph M., LL.D., Lord Mayor of Dublin.
Merx, Prof. A. (_Delegate_, University of Heidelberg).
Meyer, Prof. F., School of Mines, Clausthal, Hanover.
Mitchell, Sir Arthur, K.C.B., M.D.,
34, Drummond Place, Edinburgh.
Moffett, President T. W., LL.D. (_Delegate_, Queen’s College,
Galway).
Molloy, Very Rev. Monsignor, D.D., Rector (and _Delegate_) of
Catholic University, Ireland,
St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Monro, Rev. D. B., M.A., Provost of Oriel College, Oxford.
Morris, Right Hon. Lord, LL.D.,
18, Grosvenor Place, London, S.W.
Muir, Principal Sir Wm., K.C.S.I., D.C.L. (_Delegate_, University
of Edinburgh),
Dean Park House, Edinburgh.
Mulholland, John, LL.D.,
Ballywalter Park, Greyabbey, County Down.
Müller, Prof. F. Max, LL.D.,
All Souls’ College, Oxford.
Nettleship, Prof. H., M.A.,
Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
Newbold, W. R., Ph.D., Clerk to the Delegation of
University of Pennsylvania.
Newcomb, Prof. S., LL.D., Naval Observatory,
Washington (_Delegate_, Johns Hopkin University).
Nicole, Prof. J. (_Delegate_, University of Geneva).
Nordenskjöld, Baron A. E.,
Stockholm.
Oakeley, Prof. Sir H., Mus. Doc.,
58, St. George’s Square, London, S.W.
Odling, Prof. W., F.R.S.,
15, Norham Gardens, Oxford.
Oort, Prof. H., Th.D., Rector, University of Leyden
(_Delegate_, University of Leyden).
Paget, Sir James, Bart., M.D., F.R.S., Vice-Chancellor, London
University (_Delegate_, London University),
1, Harewood Place, Hanover Square, London, W.
Parry, Prof. H. C.,
Royal College of Music, London.
Parsons, Hon. R. C., M.A. (_Delegate_, King’s College, London),
18, Abingdon Street, Westminster, S.W.
Patton, President Rev. Fras. L., D.D. (_Delegate_ of College
of New Jersey, Princeton).
Peck, Prof. H. T., Ph.D. (_Delegate_, Columbia University).
Peile, John, LL.D., Vice-Chancellor, University of Cambridge
(_Delegate_, University of Cambridge),
Christ’s College Lodge.
Perry, Rev. Canon,
Lincoln.
Petrie, W. M. Flinders.
Plummer, Prof. Rev. Alfred, D.D. (_Delegate_ of Durham
University).
Pollock, Sir Frederick, Bart., M.A.,
48, Great Cumberland Place, London, W.
Porter, Right Hon. Andrew M., LL.D., Master of the Rolls, Ireland,
42, Merrion Square, Dublin.
Postgate, J.P., Litt.D.,
14, Hill’s Road, Cambridge.
Quain, Sir Richard, Bart., M.D.,
67, Harley Street, Cavendish Square, London, W.
Ramsay, Prof. G. G., LL.D., University of Glasgow.
Rattigan, Hon. W. H., LL.D., Vice-Chancellor, Punjaub University
(_Delegate_, Punjaub University),
_Care of_ Messrs. Allan Bros., Albion Place, London Wall,
London, E.C.
Rayleigh, Lord, D.C.L., Secretary F.R.S.,
Terling Place, Witham, Essex.
Reichel, Principal H. R., M.A. (_Delegate_, University
College of North Wales, Bangor).
Reid, J. S., Litt.D.,
Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.
Renard, L’Abbé A. F.,
à Wetteren, Belgium.
Rendall, G. H., M.A., Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University;
Principal, University College, Liverpool (_Delegate_,
Victoria University).
Retzius, Prof. G.,
University of Stockholm.
Reusch, Prof. H.,
Norges Geologiske Undersögelse, Christiania.
Richet, Prof. (_Delegate_, Univ. de France),
_Care of_ M. Gréard. Recteur de l’Université de Paris,
en Sorbonne, Paris.
Richthofen, Baron F. von (_Delegate_ of Berlin).
Roberts, Isaac, F.R.S.,
Starfield, Crowborough, Sussex.
Roscoe, Sir H. E., M.P., LL.D., F.R.S., Owen’s College, Manchester,
10, Brahman Gardens, Wetherby Road, London, S.W.
Rosebery, The Earl of, LL.D.,
38, Berkeley Square, London, W.
Routh, E. J., LL.D., F.R.S.,
S. Peter’s College, Cambridge.
Russell, James A., Right Hon. The Lord Provost of Edinburgh,
Woodville, Canaan Lane, Edinburgh.
Russell, W. Howard, LL.D.,
63, Carlisle Mansions, Victoria Street, London, S.W.
Rutherford, Rev. W. G., LL.D.,
19, Dean’s Yard, Westminster, London, S.W.
Sandys, J. E., Litt.D., Public Orator, University of Cambridge,
St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Saxtorph, Prof. H. M., LL.D. (_Delegate_, University
of Copenhagen).
Say, Léon, Member de l’Académie Française,
21, Rue Fresnel, Quai de Billy, Trocadero, Paris.
Sayce, Prof. Rev. A. H., D.D., LL.D.,
Queen’s College, Oxford.
Schipper, Prof. Dr. J. (_Delegate_, University of Vienna),
34, Döblinger Strasse, Währing, Vienna.
Simpson, Maxwell, LL.D., F.R.S.,
Crosthwaite Park, Kingstown.
Skeat, Prof. Rev. W. W., Litt.D.,
2, Salisbury Villas, Cambridge.
Slattery, President J. W., LL.D. (_Delegate_, Queen’s College,
Cork).
Smith, Very Rev. R. Payne, D.D., Dean of Canterbury,
The Deanery, Canterbury.
Smith, Prof. Rev. W. Robertson, M.A.
Christ’s College, Cambridge.
Smith, Wm., LL.D.,
94, Westbourne Terrace, London, W.
Snellen, H., Rector Magnificus, University of Utrecht (_Delegate_,
University of Utrecht).
Soubeiran, Prof. (_Delegate_, Académie de Montpellier).
Stainer, Prof. Sir John, Mus. Doc.,
Magdalen College, Oxford.
Stanford, Prof. C. Villiers, Mus. Doc.,
Trinity College, Cambridge.
Stephen, Leslie, M.A.,
22, Hyde Park Gate, London, S.W.
Stewart, Prof. T. Grainger, M.D.,
19, Charlotte Square, Edinburgh.
Stockley, Prof. W. F., M.A. (_Delegate_, University
of New Brunswick).
Stokes, Prof. Sir G. G., Bart., LL.D., M.P., F.R.S. (_Delegate_,
University of Cambridge),
Lensfield Cottage, Cambridge.
Stokes, Whitley, C.S.I., LL.D., D.C.L.,
15, Grenville Place, South Kensington, London, S.W.
Stouff, Prof. (_Delegate_, Académie de Montpellier).
Strachey, General R., F.R.S.,
69, Lancaster Gate, Hyde Park, London, W.
Struthers, John, M.D., Emeritus Professor,
24, Buckingham Terrace, Edinburgh.
Stubbs, Right Rev. William, D.D., LL.D., Lord Bishop of Oxford
(_Delegate_, University of Oxford),
The Palace, Cuddesdon.
Studer, Theoph., M.D., Rector, University of Bern
(_Delegate_, University of Bern).
Sully, James, LL.D.,
1, Portland Villas, East Heath Road, Hampstead, London, N.W.
Swete, Prof. Rev. H. B., D.D.,
56, Bateman Street, Cambridge.
Thayer, Rev. J. H., D.D., Harvard University,
_Care of_ Messrs. Baring, Bros., & Co., 8, Bishopsgate
Street Within, London, E.C.
Thompson, Rev. James (_Delegate_, University of Cape of
Good Hope).
Thomson, Prof. J. J., F.R.S.,
6, Scrope Terrace, Cambridge.
Thorpe, Prof. T. E., F.R.S., Royal College of Science,
South Kensington, London, S.W.
Thurston, Prof. R. H., Sibley College, Cornell University,
Ithaca, N.Y.
Tiele, Prof. C. P., Litt. D. (_Delegate_, University of Leyden).
Tilden, Prof. W. A., F.R.S., Queen’s College and Mason College,
Birmingham,
77, Harborne Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham.
Tisserand, Prof. F., Memb. de l’Inst. (_Delegate_, Univ.
de France),
22, Rue Gay Lussac, Paris.
Topinard, Dr. Paul,
105, Rue de Rennes, Paris.
Tucker, Prof. T. G., Litt.D. (_Delegate_, University
of Melbourne),
_Care of_ I. M‘Cosh Clark, The Tower, Lovelace Gardens,
Surbiton, Surrey.
Turner, Prof. Sir William, D.C.L., F.R.S.,
6, Eton Terrace, Edinburgh.
Twichell, Rev. J. H. (_Delegate_ of Yale University).
Vambéry, Prof. A., University of Buda-Pesth.
Veitch, Prof. J., LL.D. (_Delegate_, University of Glasgow).
Verrall, A. W., Litt.D.,
Selwyn Gardens, Cambridge.
Vinogradoff, Prof. P., University of Moscow.
Wace, Rev. H., D.D., Principal, King’s College, London,
King’s College, London.
Wagner, Prof. Adolf, University of Berlin.
Waldeyer, Prof. W., University of Berlin,
Lutherstrasse, 35, Berlin, W.
Walker, General F. A., LL.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Boston, Mass., U.S.A.
Watson, P. H., M.D.,
16, Charlotte Square, Edinburgh.
Wedenski, N. E., Zool. Dr., Councillor of State (_Delegate_,
University of St. Petersburg).
Wells, Sir Spencer, Bart., LL.D.,
3, Upper Grosvenor Street, London, W.
Wilkins, Prof. A. S., LL.D. (_Delegate_, Victoria University),
Victoria Park, Manchester.
Wilson, Col. Sir Charles W.,
Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton, Hants.
Wordsworth, Right Rev. John, D.D., LL.D., Lord Bishop of Salisbury,
The Palace, Salisbury.
_The following were received too late to appear in the alphabetical
List of Subscribers_:--
Bridge, William, M.A.,
Millpark, Roscrea.
FitzGerald, C. E., M.D.,
27, Upper Merrion Street, Dublin. (_Two Copies additional._)
Galloway, Joseph,
55, Upper Sackville Street, Dublin.
Gwynn, E. J., B.A.,
Temple Road, Rathmines, Dublin.
Homan, Rev. Canon,
Melbourne, Australia.
Hutton, T. Maxwell, D.L.,
Summer Hill, Dublin.
Jervis-White, Lieut.-Colonel H. J., M.A., T.C.D.,
Wasdale, Rathfarnham Road, Terenure, Co. Dublin.
Maxwell, T. H., B.A.,
21, Percy Place, Dublin.
Norwood, William, Sch.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Palmer, Rev. Robert, M.A.,
Bethersden Vicarage, Ashford, Kent.
Panton, Arthur W., D.Sc., F.T.C.D.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Rorke, George S.,
Magdala Road, Nottingham.
Roberts, Wm. C.,
16, Lower Hatch Street, Dublin.
Sheffield Central Free Library.
Smith, Charles, Sch., B.A.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
Strangways, L. R., M.A.,
74, St. Stephen’s Green S., Dublin.
Trouton, F., M.A., D.Sc.,
Killiney, Co. Dublin.
Thompson, Miss,
Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin. (_One Copy additional._)
Vicars, Arthur, F.S.A.,
St. Bartholemew’s Vicarage, Dublin.
Wright, C. T. H., LL.B.,
33, Mespil Road, Dublin.
[Illustration:
PRINTED
AT THE
ROYAL ULSTER WORKS,
BELFAST,
BY
MARCUS WARD & CO.,
LIMITED.
]
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Footnote [173] is referenced twice from page 278.
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained: for example,
stonework, stone-work; woodwork, wood-work; decennium; papistical;
persistency; incaution; dulness; unennobled; criminate.
Pg 16: ‘was no insistance’ replaced by ‘was no insistence’.
Footnote [74] (anchored on page 56): ‘I may recal’ replaced by
‘I may recall’.
Pg 128: ‘are now admissable’ replaced by ‘are now admissible’.
Pg 171: ‘Spaccio de le’ replaced by ‘Spaccio de la’.
Pg 246: ‘and “Oronooko” is’ replaced by ‘and “Oroonoko” is’.
Pg 295: ‘Lines 95-104.’ replaced by ‘Lines 95-114.’.
Pg 304 (MacManus): ‘Somerby Vicarge’ replaced by ‘Somerby Vicarage’.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Book of Trinity College Dublin 1591-1891" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.