## The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Book of Trinity College Dublin 1591-1891

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: The Book of Trinity College Dublin 1591-1891

Creator: Ireland) Trinity College (Dublin

Release date: January 1, 2020 [eBook #61000]
Most recently updated: October 17, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by ellinora, John Campbell and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BOOK OF TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN 1591-1891 ***

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

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.

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 displayed in the etext as Hibniæ, similarly to the original text.

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 similarly to the original text, for example 160 0 1 . 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.

On a handheld device the tables on pages 288 and 289 are best displayed using a small font to avoid truncation of the columns.

Some other minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.

TERCENTENARY CELEBRATION

JULY, 1892

PRESENTED

BY THE

PROVOST AND SENIOR FELLOWS

OF

TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN

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

1891

BELFAST

MARCUS WARD & CO., LIMITED, ROYAL ULSTER WORKS

LONDON AND NEW YORK

DUBLIN: HODGES, FIGGIS & CO., LIMITED

1892

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.

## 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

## 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, 169 3 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, | 178 178
The Library, 1891, | 179 179
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, | 191 191
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, | 201 201
Library Square, | 202 202
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, | 229 229
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

[Pg 1]

## 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.

[2]

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[3] 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[4] 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[5] 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[6] 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[7] 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.

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. |  | £ | s. | d.
“The Lord Deputy, | 200 | 0 | 0 | Advanced by his means in the Province of Munster, | 100 | 0 | 0
Archbishop Adam Loftus, | 100 | 0 | 0 | Sir Francis Shane, | 100 | 0 | 0
Sir Thomas Norreys, Vice-President of Munster, | 100 | 0 | 0 | ” ” a-year for his life, | 20 | 0 | 0
[8] Sir Warham St. Leger, | 50 | 0 | 0 | Sir Henry Harrington, | 50 | 0 | 0
Sir Richard Dyer, | 100 | 0 | 0 | Thomas Jones, Bishop of Meath, | 50 | 0 | 0
Sir Henry Bagnall, | 100 | 0 | 0 | The gentlemen of the Barony of Lecale, | 59 | 0 | 0
Sir Richard Bingham, | 20 | 0 | 0 | Sir Hugh M‘Ginnis, with other gentlemen of his county [Down], | 140 | 0 | 0
The Province of Connaught by same, | 100 | 0 | 0 | The clergy of Meath, | 30 | 0 | 0
The County of Galway by same, | 100 | 0 | 0 | Thomas Molyneux, Chancellor of the Exchequer, | 40 | 0 | 0
The town of Drogheda, | 40 | 0 | 0 | Luke Chaloner, D.D., | 10 | 0 | 0
The city of Dublin, | 27 | 0 | 0 | Edward Brabazon, | 15 | 0 | 0
A Concordatum from the Privy Council, | 200 | 0 | 0 | Sir George Bourchier, | 30 | 0 | 0
Alderman John Foster (for the Iron-work), | 30 | 0 | 0 | Christopher Chartell, | 40 | 0 | 0
Lord Chief Justice Gardiner, | 20 | 0 | 0 | Sir Turlough O’Neill, | 100 | 0 | 0
Lord Primate of Ireland [Garvey], | 76 | 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[9] 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]

[10]

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[11] 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.

THE EARLIEST EXTANT COLLEGE SEAL.

[12]

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[13] 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[14] 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[15] 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[16] 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[17] 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[18] 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[19] 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]

[20]

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[21] 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[22] 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[23] 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.

[24]

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[25] were a sham, or that they only referred to the right of citizens to interfere with the roving swine.

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[26] 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[27] 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.

### 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 160 0 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 169 3 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.

[28]
[29]

## 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[30] 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[31] 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[32] “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[33] 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.[34] 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[35] 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 167 8 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[36] 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.

[37]

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[38] (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[39] 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, 168 8 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, 168 8 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.

[40]

January 24, 168 8 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, 168 8 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, 168 8 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, 168 8 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, 168 8 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[41] 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.

[42]

“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 Ld 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 Ld High Chancellor, as they shall answer the same at their peril.

“Hugh Reily, Copia Vera.”

[43]

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,[44] 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.

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[45] 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]

[46]

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.

### 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 Epus 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 Hibniæ 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: pr. po. | 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 Maties most Honble 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 2nd 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.

[47]

## 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—

[48]

“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[49] 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[50] 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:—

[51]

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.

[52]
[53]

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[54] 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.

TITLE-PAGE OF THE CENTENARY SERMON.
A SERMON PREACHED IN Trinity-College Chappell,
BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN
JANUARY the 9th, 169 3 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[55] 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[56] 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[57] 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[58] 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[59] 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[60] 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,[61] 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.

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,[62] 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[63] 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[64] 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.]

[65]

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, 171 3 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[66] 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[67] 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, 171 5 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[68] 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[69] 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[70] 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, 173 4 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[71] that time, no names of prominence (save an Annesley) are mentioned in connection with any of the outrages. Such disorders have always been rather the fault of the Governors than of the students of the College. The course of Irish history is so uniform, the temper of the various classes in the nation is so unchanged (as every student of Irish history knows), that I do not believe the discipline which is so easily maintained now in Trinity College was ever seriously endangered, and the very fact that so many brilliant and learned men were being educated there at that period shows that its intellectual life was not impaired. The particular form of the studies pursued cannot be easily estimated. An examination of the Laudian Statutes shows that the authorities were not allowed in any way to change the subjects laid down for the course in 1637. The whole body of the teaching, as already explained, was oral, and each student reproduced in essays or disputations what he had been taught by his tutor during the week. Hence it was that such short books as those written by Dudley Loftus or Narcissus Marsh, though used by lecturers, were not formally proposed to the students. Locke’s Essay, as we know, was introduced into the post-graduate studies by the influence of Ashe and Molyneux before 1700, and has influenced the spirit of the University ever since; but this, too, was outside the prescribed course. It was not till 1760 that, by a special statute, the Provost and Board were permitted to make such changes in the course as they thought expedient. This permission, conceded long after it was needed and indeed assumed,[86] marks an epoch in the history of the College. But it belongs to the reign, not of Baldwin, but of his enlightened and brilliant successor, Andrews.

### FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

[69] Dr. Anthony Dopping.

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

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

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

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

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

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

May it Please Your Grace,

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

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

Peter Browne.

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

This unfortunate Person, for so I must needs call him, except your Gce 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 Gce 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 Sr 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 Grce that Mr. Peter Browne, who is much their junior, may not have it, &c., &c. I have sent the Bp.’s letter to His Gce 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.

[72]
[73]

## 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[74] 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:—

[75]

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[76] 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 [77]Wilder, Regr.

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]

[78]

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[79] 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[80] 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[81] 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[82] 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[83] 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[84] 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.

[85]

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[86] 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.

[87]

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[88] 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[89] 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.

### 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.

[90]
[91]

## 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[92] 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[93] 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[94] 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[95] 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[96] 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[97] 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[98] 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[99] 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[100] 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[101] 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[102] 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[103] 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[104] 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[105] 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[106] 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[107] 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[108] 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[109] 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 [110] 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[111] 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,[112] 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[113] 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[114] 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[115] 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[116] 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[117] 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[118] 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[119] 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.

[120]

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[121] 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.

[122]

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[123] 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[124] 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.

[125]

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[126] 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[127] 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.

[128]

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,[129] 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.

[130]

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.

[131]

## 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[132] 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.

[133]

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.[134] 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.

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.[134] 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[135] 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.

[136]

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[137] 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[138] 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[139] 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.

[140]

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[141] 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[142] 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.

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.

[143]

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[144] 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.

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[145] 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.

### FOOTNOTES:

[107] Graves’ Life of Hamilton, vol. i., p. 46.

[108] Life of De Morgan, by his wife, p. 333.

[109] Ibid.

[146]
[147]

## CHAPTER VII.
THE LIBRARY.

“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[148] 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[149] 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[150] 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[151] 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[152] 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.

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[153] 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.

[154]

INTERIOR OF LIBRARY, 1858.

[155]

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[156] 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[157] 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[158] 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.

[159]

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[160] 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 wch Bookes sunck to the bottom of the Deepest waters, they would not lose one letter signe or character of them, wch I have seen partly my selfe of that book of them wch is at Dorow, in the Ks 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[161]
[162] 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.

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[163] 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[164] 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.”

[165]

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.

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[166] 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[167] 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]

[168]

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.

[169]

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.

[170]

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).

[171]

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[172] 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[173] 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[174] 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[175] (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[176] 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.

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[177] 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.

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[178] with the gallery at this end, it was proposed either to continue this staircase, or to[179] 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.

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[178] with the gallery at this end, it was proposed either to continue this staircase, or to[179] 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.

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,[180] 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.

THE LIBRARY, 1891. (SEE PAGE 213.)
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.

[181]

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.

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.

[182]
[183]

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[184] 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]

[185]

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[186] 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.

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[187] 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[188] 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[189] 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.

[190]

### THE MODERN COLLEGE.

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, [191]
[192] 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.

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,[191] the buildings of the new College seemed to have sufficed for the accommodation of the[192] 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.

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[193] 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[194] 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.

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[195] 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.

[196]

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[197] 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[198] 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.

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[199] 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[200] 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.

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 [201]
[202] 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.

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[201] College, is a large room or hall, at first used as a Regent House for the meetings of Masters[202] 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.

PARLIAMENT AND LIBRARY SQUARES.
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[203] 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.

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[203] 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[204] 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[205] 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.

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[206] 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. |  | No. 2.—Second Manual or Great Organ, CC to F Compass.
Soft Bourdon, | 16 feet tone. |  | Open Diapason, | 8 feet.
Open Diapason, | 8 ” ” |  | Stopt Diapason, | 8 feet tone.
Dulciana, | 8 ” ” |  | Delicate Gamba, | 8 (to tenor C only).
Flute, | 4 ” ” |  | Flute, | 4 feet.
Principal, | 4 ” ” |  | Principal, | 4 feet.
Fifteenth, | 2 ” ” |  | Fifteenth, | 2 feet.
Piccolo, | 1 ” ” |  | Mixture (bright tone), | 3 ranks.
Soft Mixture of 3 ranks, 12, 15, 17. |  | Sesqui altera (soft tone), | 3 ranks.
Oboe, | 8 ” ” |  | Clarionet (to tenor C), | 8 feet tone.
Vox humana, | 8 ” ” |  | Contra-fagotto, | 16 feet (throughout).
Trumpet, | 8 ” ” |  | Trumpet, | 8 feet.
No. 3.—Old Choir Organ, by Green. Compass, GGG, 12 feet to E in Alt. |  | No. 4.—Two Octaves and a third, in Compass (Pedal Organ) CC to E.
Stopt Diapason, | 8 |  | Sub-Bass, | 32
Dulciana, | 8 |  | Double Open Diapason, | 16
Principal, | 4 |  | Double Stopt Diapason, | 16 feet tone.
Fifteenth, | 2 |  | 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.[207] 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.

[208]

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.

[209]

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.

[210]

### 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.

[211]

BALDWIN’S MONUMENT.

[212]

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[213] 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[214] 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[215]
[216] 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.

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[217] 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.

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[218]
[219] 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.

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,[220]
[221] 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.

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[222] 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.

[223]

HALL AND STAIRCASE, ENGINEERING SCHOOL.
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.[224] 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.

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[225]
[226] 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.

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.

[227]

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,[228] 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.

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,[229] 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.

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,[229] 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.

[230]

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,[231] especially in Paris, and lately introduced into the Anthropometric Department of the Military Medical School at Washington.

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.

[232]

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.[233] 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]

THE PRINTING OFFICE.

[234]

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.

[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.

[235]

## 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.

[236]

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[237] 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.

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[238] 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,[239] 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[240] 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.[241] 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.”

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[242] 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[243] 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.

(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[244] 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.

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.”

(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,[245] 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.”

Thomas Southerne Esqr.

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[246] 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,[247] 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.

Mr 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[248] 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.

[249]

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[250] 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.”

[251]

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.”

[252]

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[253] 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,[254] 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[255] 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.”

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[256] 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[257] 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[258] 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.

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[259] 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.”

[260]

“THE BURIAL OF SIR JOHN MOORE.”
FAC-SIMILE FROM ORIGINAL LETTER IN THE LIBRARY OF THE ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY.
(By Permission.)

[261]

(second page)

[262]

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.

[263]

(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.

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[264] 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.

BERKELEY’S TOMB.

[265]

### DISTINGUISHED GRADUATES

Referred to in Chapter IX.

| PAGE |  |  | PAGE
Ashe, St. George | 243 |  | King, William | 241
Berkeley, George | 249 |  | Leslie, Charles | 241
Boyle, Robert | 241 |  | Lever, Charles | 263
Brady, Nicholas | 241 |  | Le Fanu, Sheridan | 263
Brooke, Henry | 248 |  | Loftus, Dudley | 239
Browne, Peter | 241 |  | M‘Calmont, Hugh, Earl Cairns | 262
Burke, Edmund | 252 |  | MacCullagh, James | 263
Bushe, Charles Kendel | 253 |  | Magee, William (Dublin) | 262
Butler, William Archer | 262 |  | Magee, William Connor (York) | 253
Butt, Isaac | 262 |  | Malone, Edmund | 253
Clayton, Robert | 252 |  | Maxwell, William | 263
Congreve, William | 246 |  | Molyneux, William | 243
Conyngham, William, Lord Plunket | 258 |  | Moore, Thomas | 258
Curran, John Philpot | 258 |  | Napier, Sir Joseph | 262
Davis, Thomas | 262 |  | O’Brien, Sir Lucius | 257
Delany, Patrick | 243 |  | Parnell, Thomas | 248
Denham, Sir John | 241 |  | Sheil, Richard Lalor | 258
Dillon, Earl of Roscommon | 241 |  | Skelton, Philip | 252
Dodwell, Henry | 240 |  | Southerne, Thomas | 245
Dopping, Anthony | 242 |  | Swift, Jonathan | 244
Emmet, Robert | 259 |  | Tate, Nahum | 241
Farquhar, George | 247 |  | Tone, Theobald Wolfe | 262
Ferguson, Sir Samuel | 262 |  | Toplady, Augustus | 253
Fitzgibbon, John, Earl of Clare | 255 |  | Ussher, James | 238
Flood, Henry | 256 |  | Ware, Sir James | 239
Goldsmith, Oliver | 252 |  | Whiteside, James | 262
Grattan, Henry | 255 |  | Wilson, Thomas | 241
Graves, Robert James | 262 |  | Wolfe, Charles | 260-261
Hamilton, Sir William Rowan | 263 |  | Wellesley, Garrod, Earl of Mornington | 253

[266]
[267]

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.”

[268]

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]

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.

[269]

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
164 5 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
164 6 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
[270] 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, 168 6 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.

[271]

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 5s. 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 2s. 6d. On the 7th of February, 168 7 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.

[272]

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.

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[273] 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:—

DUNCOMBE CUP,
1680.
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[274] 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.

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.

[275]

## 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,[276] 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[277] 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[278] 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[279] 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[280] 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[281]
[282] (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.

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[283] 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.

### 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.

[284]
[285]

## 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

[286]

THE JUNIOR FELLOWS (Classis Secunda).
| ELECTED |  |  | ELECTED
The Rev. James William Barlow, M.A., | 1850 |  | George Francis FitzGerald, M.A., Sc.D., | 1877
The Rev. Richard Mountifort Conner, D.D., Junior Bursar and Registrar of Chambers, | 1851 |  | Frederick Purser, M.A., | 1879
Benjamin Williamson, M.A., Sc.D., | 1852 |  | Louis Claude Purser, M.A., Litt.D., | 1881
The Rev. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, B.D., Litt.D., | 1854 |  | William Ralph Westropp Roberts, M.A., | 1882
The Rev. Thomas Thompson Gray, M.A., Junior Dean, | 1862 |  | Edward Parnall Culverwell, M.A., | 1883
The Rev. John Pentland Mahaffy, D.D., | 1864 |  | Rev. John Henry Bernard, B.D., | 1884
Anthony Traill, LL.D., M.D., M.Ch. | 1865 |  | John Bagnell Bury, M.A., | 1885
Francis Alexander Tarleton, LL.D., Sc.D., | 1866 |  | Alexander Charles O’Sullivan, M.A., | 1886
Arthur Palmer, M.A., Litt.D., | 1867 |  | John Isaac Beare, M.A., | 1887
Robert Yelverton Tyrrell, M.A., Litt.D., | 1868 |  | Robert Russell, M.A., | 1888
George Lambert Cathcart, M.A., | 1870 |  | Matthew Wyatt Joseph Fry, M.A., Junior Proctor, | 1889
William Snow Burnside, M.A., Sc.D., | 1871 |  | William Joseph Myles Starkie, M.A., | 1890
William Smyth M‘Cay, M.A., | 1872 |  | George Wilkins, M.A., | 1891
Arthur William Panton, M.A., Sc.D., | 1873 |  | Henry Stewart Macran, | 1892

PROFESSORS WHO ARE NOT FELLOWS (Classis Tertia).
| ELECTED |  |  | ELECTED
Edward Perceval Wright, M.D., | 1858 |  | Sir John Thomas Banks, K.C.B., M.D., | 1880
Mir Aulad Ali, M.A., | 1861 |  | Charles Francis Bastable, LL.D., | 1882
Sir Robert Prescott Stewart, Mus. Doc., | 1862 |  | Daniel John Cunningham, M.D., Sc.D., | 1883
Albert Maximilian Selss, LL.D., | 1866 |  | William Johnson Sollas, LL.D., | 1883
Robert Atkinson, LL.D., Litt.D., | 1867 |  | Rev. George Thomas Stokes, D.D., | 1883
Edward Dowden, LL.D., Litt.D., | 1867 |  | Thomas Alexander, M.A.I., | 1887
Edward H. Bennett, M.D., | 1873 |  | Richard Robert Cherry, LL.D., | 1888
Sir Robert Ball, LL.D., Sc.D., | 1874 |  | Rev. John Gwynn, D.D., | 1888
James Emerson Reynolds, M.D., Sc.D., | 1875 |  | Rev. Samuel Hemphill, B.D., | 1888
Henry Brougham Leech, LL.D., | 1878 |  | Rev. Frederick Richards Wynne, D.D., | 1888
Rev. James Goodman, M.A., | 1879 |  | George Vaughan Hart, LL.D., | 1890
Henry W. Mackintosh, M.A., | 1879 |  | Sir George Hornridge Porter, Bart., M.D., | 1891
UNIVERSITY REPRESENTATIVES IN PARLIAMENT.
| ELECTED |  |  | ELECTED
Right Hon. David Robert Plunket, LL.D., | 1870 |  | Right Hon. Dodgson H. Madden, M.A., | 1887

[287]

THE UNIVERSITY PREACHERS FOR THE YEAR.
Ordinary. |  | Select.
Rev. John W. Stubbs, D.D. |  | Rev. Thomas Lucas Scott, M.A.
Rev. Hewitt R. Poole, D.D. |  | Rev. Samuel Hemphill, B.D.
Rev. Thomas K. Abbott, B.D. |  | Rev. Arthur Gore, M.A.
EVENING PREACHERS.
Rev. Richard M. Conner, M.A. |  | Rev. John H. Bernard, B.D.
Rev. Thomas T. Gray, M.A. |  | 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.]
| ELECTED
| 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.

[288]

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.

[289]

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.

[290]

### 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.

[291]

## 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 hills5

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 Dream10

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 dead35

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

[292]

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 continent45

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 tread75

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 still95

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 eye105

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 now110

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-Queen115

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 sight125

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,

[293]

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 torn140

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 lands160

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 guiding195

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 wand205

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 skill215

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.

[294]

IV. 1.

Our triumph is the victory

Of Thought, the Mind’s high festival.

Ah, cold and bleak at times will be225

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 told270

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 fleet275

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 shattered280

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 range285

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 fear290

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.

[295]

### 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.

[296]

TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, 1892.

[297]

## 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.,
[298]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.,
[299]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.,
[300]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.,
[301]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.,
[302]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.,
[303]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,
[304]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,
[305]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.,
[306]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.,
[307]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.,
[308]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,
[309]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.

[310]

## 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,
[311]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.,
[312]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,
[313]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, [314]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,
[315]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,
[316]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.

PRINTED AT THE ROYAL ULSTER WORKS, BELFAST,
BY
MARCUS WARD & CO., LIMITED.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Footnote [173] is referenced twice from page 278.

Six illustrations were printed sideways in the original book and are displayed horizontally in this etext.

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 THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BOOK OF TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN 1591-1891 ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

## THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.