[Ill.u.s.tration: THE COLLEGE ARMS]
The rest of this century of the College existence, with the exception of one exciting event, pa.s.sed quietly enough. Such troubles as there were in College were but eddies of the storms in the world outside. Of the "seven Bishops" sent to the Tower by King James II. in 1688, three were of St. John"s: Francis Turner, Bishop of Ely (who had been Master of the College from 1670 to 1679); John Lake, Bishop of Chichester; and Thomas White, Bishop of Peterborough.
The event of College interest was the fate of the nonjuring Fellows. The Nonjurors were those who, on various grounds, honourable enough, declined to take the oath of allegiance to King William and Queen Mary.
Under the law they were liable to be deprived of their places and emoluments. At St. John"s twenty Fellows and eight scholars took up the nonjuring position. In the rest of the University there were but fourteen in all, and the same number at the University of Oxford. No explanation seems to be forthcoming as to why there was this preponderance of opinion at St. John"s. It is difficult to believe that it was enthusiasm for the cause of James II.; for when in 1687 that King directed the University to admit Father Alban Francis, a Benedictine monk, to the degree of M.A. without making the subscription or taking the oaths required for a degree, Thomas Smoult and John Billers, members of the College (the latter afterwards a Nonjuror), maintained the right of the University to refuse the degree before the notorious Judge Jeffreys, after the Vice-Chancellor and Isaac Newton had been silenced.
Humphrey Gower was at this time Master of the College; he was of Puritan origin, and entered the College during the Commonwealth. After the Restoration he joined the Church of England, and though his sympathies were with the Nonjurors, he took the oaths and retained his mastership after the flight of King James. He had been for less than six months Master of Jesus before becoming Master of St. John"s. Abraham de la Pryme, a member of St. John"s, has handed down an irreverent jest on his appointment. "Our master, they say, is a mighty, high, proud man.... He came from Jesus College to be master here, and he was so sevear that he was commonly called the divel of Jesus; and when he was made master here some unlucky scholars broke this jest upon him--that now the divel was entered into the heard of swine; for us Johnians are abusively called hoggs."
In 1693 the Court of King"s Bench issued a _mandamus_ calling upon Gower to remove those Fellows who had not taken the oath. Defence upon the merits of the case there was none; but Gower or his legal advisers opposed the mandate with great skill on technical points, and after much litigation the Court had to admit that its procedure was irregular, and the matter dropped for some twenty-four years. During this period some of the Fellows in question died, others ceded their fellowships owing to the combined action of the general law and the College statutes. Under the latter Fellows were bound, when of proper standing, to proceed to the B.D. degree, but the oath of allegiance was required of those who took the degree, and so fellowships were forfeited. Thomas Baker, the historian, who was one of the Nonjurors, had taken the B.D. degree before 1688, so this cause did not operate in his case. But on the accession of King George I., an abjuration oath was required, and the meshes of the net being now smaller, the then Master, Dr. Jenkin, had no other course but to eject Baker and others. The College did all it could to soften the blow, and allowed Baker to reside in College until his death in 1740. He worked unweariedly at his ma.n.u.script collections and at the history of the College. The latter was first published in 1869, under the editorship of Professor John E. B. Mayor; with the editor"s additions it forms a record of a College such as almost no other foundation can show. Baker"s learning and accuracy are undoubted; but it may be permitted (even to a member of his College) to hint that Baker"s judgments are a little severe, and his views somewhat narrow.
One notable improvement in the College records dates from this century.
In early days no record was made of the names of those who joined the College. The statutes of King Henry VIII. enjoined that a register should be kept of all those admitted to scholarships and fellowships or College offices. This was begun in 1545, and has been continued to the present time. The entries of scholars and Fellows are in the autograph of those admitted, and if they possessed no other interest, have that of providing numerous examples of contemporary handwriting. But of those not admitted on the foundation, or of those admitted prior to 1545, there is no official College record.
Dr. Owen Gwyn and the seniors of his day pa.s.sed a rule that "the register of the College should have a book provided him wherein he should from time to time write and register the names, parents, county, school, age, and tutor of every one to be admitted to the College." This was commenced in January 1629-30, and has been continued, with varying care and exactness, ever since. It seems probable that the initiative in this matter was due to Gwyn, as few Masters have so carefully preserved their official correspondence.
Just before this general register commenced, three notable men joined the College: Thomas Wentworth, afterwards Earl of Strafford; Thomas Fairfax, afterwards Lord Fairfax, the victor at Naseby; and Lucius Cary, Viscount Falkland, who fell in Newbury fight in September 1643.
Complimentary letters to the first and last of these, with the replies, have been preserved. Falkland, in his reply, complains that of the t.i.tles given to him by the College "that which I shold most willingly have acknowledged and mought with most justice clayme you were not pleased to vouchsafe me, that of a St. John"s man."
Of others who entered we may name: Sir Ingram Hopton, son of Ralph, first Baron Hopton, who entered as a Fellow Commoner 12th May 1631. Sir Ingram fell at the battle of Winceby, 11th October 1643. He there unhorsed Oliver Cromwell in a charge, and knocked him down again as he rose, but was himself killed.
t.i.tus Oates, "the infamous," first entered at Caius 29th June 1667, migrating to St. John"s, where he entered 2nd February 1668-69. Thomas Baker for once abandons his decorous reticence and states of Oates: "He was a lyar from the beginning, he stole and cheated his taylor of a gown, which he denied with horrid imprecations, and afterwards at a communion, being admonisht and advised by his Tutor, confest the fact."
Matthew Prior, the poet, was both scholar and Fellow of the College, holding his fellowship until his death. Robert Herrick, though he graduated at Trinity Hall, was sometime a Fellow Commoner here. Thomas Forster of Adderstone, general to the "Old Pretender," and commander of the Jacobite army in 1715, entered the College as a Fellow Commoner 3rd July 1700. Brook Taylor, well known to mathematicians as the discoverer of "Taylor"s theorem," entered as a Fellow Commoner 3rd April 1701.
While David Mossom of Greenwich, who entered the College as a sizar 5th June 1705, after being ordained, emigrated to America, and became rector of St. Peter"s Church, New Kent County, Virginia. He was the officiating clergyman at the marriage of George Washington in St.
Peter"s Church.
We get an amusing glimpse of the importance of the Master of a College in the following anecdote: "In the year 1712 my old friend, Matthew Prior, who was then Fellow of St. John"s, and who not long before had been employed by the Queen as her Plenipotentiary at the Court of France, came to Cambridge; and the next morning paid a visit to the Master of his own College. The Master (Dr. Jenkin) loved Mr. Prior"s principles, had a great opinion of his abilities, and a respect for his character in the world; but then he had much greater respect for himself. He knew his own dignity too well to suffer a Fellow of his College to sit down in his presence. He kept his seat himself, and let the Queen"s Amba.s.sador stand. Such was the temper, not of a Vice-Chancellor, but of a simple Master of a College. I remember, by the way, an extempore epigram of Matt"s on the reception he had there met with. We did not reckon in those days that he had a very happy turn for an epigram; but the occasion was tempting; and he struck it off as he was walking from St. John"s College to the Rose, where we dined together. It was addressed to the Master:--
""I _stood_, Sir, patient at your feet, Before your elbow chair; But make a bishop"s throne your seat, I"ll _kneel_ before you there.
One only thing can keep you down, For your great soul too mean; You"d not, to mount a bishop"s throne, Pay _homage_ to the Queen.""
CHAPTER VI
THE THIRD CENTURY
1716-1815
The third century of the College history coincides roughly with the eighteenth century. It was not a period of very high ideals, and "privilege" was in full force. For the first time in the College registers men are entered as "n.o.blemen." These were allowed to proceed to the M.A. degree direct in two years without pa.s.sing through the intermediate stage of B.A. The College was also full of Fellow Commoners, who sat with the Fellows at the High Table in Hall; until the close of the century these do not seem to have proceeded to any degree.
The other two cla.s.ses were the pensioners, who paid their way, and the sizars. A sizar was definitely attached to a Fellow or Fellow Commoner, and in return for duties of a somewhat menial character pa.s.sed through his College course on reduced terms. Among other duties, a sizar had, with some of the scholars, to wait at table, a service not abolished until 6th May 1786.
[Ill.u.s.tration: THE CHAPEL TOWER FROM THE RIVER.]
Speaking in general terms, the College seems gradually to have acquired the reputation of being the Tory College in the Whig University; it became exceedingly fashionable, and towards the end of the century had more students in residence than any other College. At the same time its reputation for efficiency was very high. This was due to the policy of Dr. William Samuel Powell, Master from 1765 to 1775. He introduced various administrative changes on the financial side of College management, and also started annual examinations in the College, then a novelty in the University. These examinations were not very severe, and to the somewhat overtaxed undergraduate of the present day might seem almost trivial. They were not compet.i.tive, there was no order of merit, but no one seems to have been exempt; their object was simply to test the knowledge of the students. The success of the plan attracted much attention; it was proposed to inst.i.tute similar examinations for the University at large, but Powell opposed this on the ground that candidates ought to be examined by those who taught them. From this date it would appear that Fellow Commoners, at St. John"s at least, began to take degrees in the University.
During Powell"s mastership an observatory was established on the top of the western gateway of the Second Court, and regular astronomical observations taken. Two sets of observations there made by Fellows of the College have been published; one set made by William Ludlam in 1767 and 1768, the other by Thomas Catton between 1796 and 1826, the latter being published by the Royal Astronomical Society in 1854.
We find members of the College taking part in all the movements of the time. In the rebellion of 1745, James Dawson, a captain in the Manchester Regiment, was taken prisoner at Carlisle, and executed in July 1746 on Kennington Common; while Robert Ganton, afterwards a clergyman, was excused one term"s residence in the University, during which, as one of "his majesty"s Royal Hunters," he was fighting the rebels.
Charles Churchill, satirist, was for a short time a member of the College in 1748. William Wordsworth, afterwards Poet Laureate, entered the College as a sizar, and was admitted a foundress" scholar 6th November 1787. Many adopted military careers; of these we may mention George, first Marquis Townshend, who joined the College in 1741, afterwards entered the army, and was present at Fontenoy and Culloden; he went with Wolfe to Canada, and took over the command when Wolfe fell.
Daniel Hoghton entered in 1787, he also became a soldier, and was one of Wellington"s men in the Peninsular War; he was killed at the battle of Albuera, being then a major-general.
Of another type were William Wilberforce (entered 1776) and Thomas Clarkson (1779), whose names will always be a.s.sociated in connection with the abolition of slavery. The saintly Henry Martyn, Senior Wrangler in 1801 and Fellow of the College, went out as a missionary to India in 1805, and died at Tokat in Persia in 1812. There have been many missionary sons of the College since his day, but his self-denial greatly impressed his contemporaries, and Sir James Stephen speaks of him as "the one heroic name which adorns the annals of the Church of England from the days of Elizabeth to our own." With Martyn curiously enough is a.s.sociated in College annals another name, that of Henry John Temple, third Viscount Palmerston, sometime Prime Minister of England; for Martyn and Temple appear as officers of the College company of volunteers in the year 1803.
Thomas Denman, afterwards Lord Chief Justice, entered the College in 1796; he resided in the Second Court, staircase G, at the top. When he brought up his son, the Hon. George Denman, to Trinity he pointed the rooms out to him, and the latter pointed them out to the present writer, "in order that the oral tradition might be preserved."
Alexander John Scott, who, as private secretary and interpreter to Lord Nelson, was present on the _Victory_ at Trafalgar, entered the College in 1786, and became a scholar of the College 3rd November 1789. Fletcher Norton, Speaker of the House of Commons from 1770 to 1780, and first Lord Grantley, entered the College in 1734. With him, in a way, was connected John Horne (afterwards Horne Tooke), who entered in 1754; for Horne, for purposes of his own, libelled Fletcher Norton when Speaker.
Horne Tooke"s stormy career belongs rather to political than College history; but it is worth noting that when he presented himself at Cambridge for the M.A. degree, and the granting of this was opposed in the senate on the ground that he had traduced the clergy in his writings, the members of St. John"s, headed by Dr. Richard Beadon, then Public Orator, afterwards Bishop of Bath and Wells, carried the grace for the degree. Horne and Beadon entered the College in the same year.
We have already mentioned Charles Churchill. Another Johnian poet of this period was William Mason, who entered the College in 1742. Mason afterwards became a Fellow of Pembroke, where he was the intimate friend of Thomas Gray. As the biographer of Gray he is perhaps better remembered than for his own poetry, though during his lifetime he enjoyed considerable fame.
A somewhat unusual career was that of William Smith, who entered the College from Eton in 1747, but left without taking a degree. He is reported to have snapped an unloaded pistol at one of the Proctors, and rather than submit to the punishment which the College authorities thought proper to inflict, left the University. He became an actor, and was very popular in his day, being known as "Gentleman Smith." He was a.s.sociated with David Garrick, and Smith"s admirers held that he fell little short of his master in the art.
The reputation of the College as a medical school was maintained by Dr.
William Heberden, who entered in 1724. Heberden attended Samuel Johnson in his last illness, and Johnson described him as "_ultimus Romanorum_, the last of our learned physicians." A description which may be amplified by saying that Heberden was in a way the first of the modern physicians.
CHAPTER VII
THE CURRENT CENTURY
The time has probably not yet come when a satisfactory account of College and University development during the nineteenth century can be written. The changes have been fundamental, involving perhaps a change of ideal as well as of method. In early days the College was filled with men saturated with the spirit of the Renaissance; casting aside the studies of the Middle Ages, they returned to the literature of Greece and Rome. The ideals of the present day are not less high, but more complex and less easy to state briefly; the aim is perhaps rather to add to knowledge than to acquire it for its own sake alone.
[Ill.u.s.tration: The College Chapel]
For the first half of the century College life was still regulated by the statutes of Elizabeth. These were characterised by over-cautious and minute legislation. Now that they are superseded, the chief feeling is one of surprise that a system of laws, intended to be unchangeable, should have endured so long in presence of the changing character of the wants and habits of mankind.
It must be remembered that each member of the corporate body, Master, Fellow, or Scholar, on admission, each officer on his appointment, bound himself by oaths of great solemnity to observe these statutes and to seek no dispensation from their provisions. To a more logical race the difficulties must have proved intolerable--the practical Englishman found his own solution.
The forms were observed _juramenti gratia_, but much practical work was supplemental to the statutes. This could be ill.u.s.trated in more than one way--the most interesting is the development of the educational side and the tutorial system.
The statutes prescribed the appointment of certain lecturers--even the subjects of their lectures. s.p.a.ce need not be occupied in showing that such provisions soon became obsolete. The working solution was found in the tutorial system. In early days it was contemplated and prescribed that each Fellow should have the care of two or three students, living with them, teaching them daily; the exact date when this system pa.s.sed away has not been traced with any certainty, but gradually the number of Fellows taking individual charge of the undergraduates diminished until it became reduced to two or three. Those in charge became known as Tutors, and with each Tutor was a.s.sociated one or two others called a.s.sistant Tutors or Lecturers. A charge was made to the undergraduates for tuition, and the sum so received was shared by the Tutors and their a.s.sistants. But the Tutor was not a College officer in the eye of the statutes, nor the money received for tuition treated as part of the College revenues. The system worked, because it was meant to work, and as it was not subject to obsolete rules could be modified and adapted to changing conditions. So long as the chief subjects of study were few in number, practically restricted to cla.s.sics and mathematics, College provision for teaching was possible and simple. The multiplication of studies, the needs of the studies generally known as the Natural Sciences, with their expensive laboratories and equipment, are entailing further changes, and the tendency, more especially in the newer subjects, is to centralise teaching under the control of University professors and teachers. The subject is one of great interest, but cannot be further touched upon here. To return to the history of St.
John"s.
Dr. James Wood became Master in 1815. He was a man of humble origin, a native of Holcombe, in the parish of Bury, Lancashire. According to a well-authenticated tradition he "kept," as an undergraduate, in a garret in staircase O in the Second Court, and studied in the evening by the light of the rush candle which lit the staircase, with his feet in straw, not being able to afford fire or light. He became a successful and popular College Tutor, and his mathematical writings were long the standard text-books in the University. At the time of his death in 1839 he held, with his mastership, the Deanery of Ely and the Rectory of Freshwater in the Isle of Wight. He made the College his residuary legatee, but during his life had handed over large sums for College purposes, and the total of his gifts cannot have been less than 60,000.
In Wood"s time we find the first movement in favour of change taken by the College itself. St. John"s then suffered under a specially awkward restriction arising from the joint effect of the general statutes and the trusts of private foundations. By the statutes not more than two Fellows could come from any one county in England, or more than one from each diocese in Wales.
There were thirty-two foundation Fellows, and twenty-one founded by private benefactors, the latter having all the privileges and advantages of the former. Each of these private foundations had its own special restriction; the holders were to be perhaps of founder"s name or kin, or to come from certain specified counties, parishes, or schools. The effect of these special restrictions was that many fellowships had to be filled by men possessing the special qualification without, perhaps, any great intellectual distinction. But once a county was "full" no Fellow could be elected who had been born in that county; and even if a vacancy occurred a promising man might be again cut out by some special restriction. Dr. Wood and the Fellows addressed themselves to this point and obtained in 1820 the Royal consent to a statute throwing open the foundress" fellowships without restriction as to county; the private foundations were left untouched, but the College was empowered to transfer a Fellow on the foundress" foundation to one of the special foundations, if qualified.
Dr. Wood was succeeded as Master by Dr. Ralph Tatham, whose father and grandfather (of the same names) had been members of the College. He was Public Orator of the University from 1809 to 1836, an office for which he was well qualified by a singular dignity of person and courtesy of manner. "He brought forth b.u.t.ter," said the wags, "in a lordly dish." In the year 1837 the Earl of Radnor and others raised the question of University reform, and tried to induce the House of Lords to pa.s.s a bill for the appointment of a University Commission. In the end the matter was shelved, the friends of the University undertaking that the Colleges, with the approval of their Visitors, should prepare new statutes for the a.s.sent of the Crown. The change in St. John"s was opposed by some ultra-conservative Fellows, who urged that as they were bound by oath to observe and uphold the statutes, and to seek no dispensation from them, they were precluded from asking for any change.
The Bishop of Ely, however, gently put this objection on one side, and the statutes then prepared were approved by Queen Victoria in 1849. The more ardent reformers have described this code as merely legalising the customs and "abuses" which had grown up around the Elizabethan statutes without introducing any effective change.