LA 
 
 vis 
 
 ^ 
 

 #' .^ . . ■ -^ 
 
 ^ '_ •'V 
 
 x^^ '-t. 
 
 '. 
 
 
 
 %/ - 
 
 -^..^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 . ■> 
 
 
 
 ■ >^% ' 
 
 " .^ -^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■i- 
 
 - -v 
 
 
 
 
 X '/ 
 
 ■\ ■'■'. ' ., - 
 
 , <- .^> -^ -^ , 
 
 ^ >'^ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ■■-■% ' 
 
 '\^^ .-■'%% 
 
 .^X--.-%' 
 
 •\.v^^ - 
 
 t , -/^ 
 
 o"^ 
 
 -'■ ■^■ 
 
 v^' :- --. 
 
 0^ ^ ^- 
 
 -■^'' 
 
 
 % 
 
 x^^ 
 
 
 ■%. I / 
 
 "^ y -'. 
 
 C- 
 
 
 
 ^S■-■ 
 
 ->, , , ^ 
 
 '^> 
 
 X- 
 
 ■*■ J 
 
 
 / ' ■■ . ■ \^^ , 
 
 ■-'''- ' ..■ ■ c-'' , . 
 
 ,-. ^ ^/- ■' 
 
 \^' 
 
 > 
 
 
 C' \' , ' 
 
 - / ^ '^- 
 
 /^ C' 
 
 \- ^* 
 
 
 
 %.^ - 
 
 
 "-.. O <- 
 
 ^ -'-«' -^ 
 
 
 ,:• 
 
 •^. 
 
 . - ..^ ^ 
 
 ^ ^ '\ - 
 
 -. ' '" .\'' 
 
 -'' '% 
 
 \ 
 
 
 > *^ / 
 
 
 ■ s.^ ..'^^ 
 
 ^ '^ 
 
 
 Y^ 
 
 -v ,>'^^' *;% 
 
 .*' . ■ ■ ■ . % 
 
 
 '/'■' 
 
 
 
 
 
 v^ 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 
 0^ ^■ 
 
 - >' 
 
 %:*■■- 
 
 ',<> 
 
 - A ■ 
 
 ■K ■•"^<' 
 
 
 
 
 ^ /-■•: 
 
 
 : %,^ />■ : 
 
 
 ,i^ "■ '?■■ 
 
 
 
 ..,^Vv; 
 
 \:V^. 
 
 
 / 
 
 -;^^' 
 
 ^\/ -;"%% 
 
 .-v.^:-.% ^ 
 
 ,^^o'\ 
 
 
 
 r -^ ^ ^ 
 
 
 0^ f '^■ 
 
 
 
 
 > .-^^^ 
 
 
 -%/'^-^^ 
 
 ■J- 
 
 
 
 
 
 - - - ^' ■% 
 
 ..^' f 
 
 
 .\ 
 
 ■/^ 
 
 ■^ -, , -^ - 
 
 
 -v'^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 0- 
 
 "V- 
 
 '^. 
 
 = ,s 
 
 "> - ,,-\ 
 
 -r, 
 
 
 ^Z- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r. 
 
 \ ^ 
 
 .~^■ 
 
 ■ ■'■^. v\. 
 
 " ' _ -^ 
 
 A ^ 
 
 
 ,,x^ :V:. 
 
 ."■ %/ 
 
 -..^ :-.-:; 
 
 : ■'; % 
 
 
 '.■■-■■ , -\' 
 
 
 .'^' v. 
 
 ■■ J-"^ 
 
 ,^^- 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 . *"■ .o<~ 
 
 ■\ 
 
 
 0^ -" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 %.-:-::-.^'^' 
 
 
 
 ■' '^ 
 
 v-N ' 
 
 '^. \\* ' 
 
 " / -^ 
 
 r . 
 
 \- > 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ' ^. . "" ■■ 
 
 
 • ^. 
 
 
/- v" 
 
 o> ^i- 
 
 ->, .• 
 
 ^^.,^ : 
 
 o>^->.. 
 
 vX> -'r 
 
 
 ' .\\ 
 
 
 _..\ 
 
 
 ' .0 
 
 . \ 
 
 s^- /■, 
 
 ■'•/ .v\^ 
 
 ? O', 
 
 >^r^#- 
 
 0-- 
 
 ,.^ -O, 
 
 \^ "^ 
 
 
 
 •'.. ,x^^ 
 
 •-,.• ,<\^ 
 
 ,.\ ■ 
 
 
 >,v- ^ 
 
 V V.' 
 V '- 
 
 
 
 
 •,\^ -^',,-, 
 
 
 -'J v' 
 
 ->' 
 
 
 ^^>. <v' 
 
 aV ■/■- 
 
 
The Royal Authority 
 
 AND THE 
 
 Eariy English Universities 
 
 A Thesis presented to the Faculty of Philosophy of the 
 University of Pennsylvania 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES F. WILLARD 
 
 In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the 
 Degree Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 ■'1 C . 6" 
 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 igoz. 
 
 3 J ^-^^^■'■' 
 

 
 i he 'J nf/zrsii./. 
 
 7: 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Introduction 5 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 The Judicial Powers of the Chancellor, 14 
 
 CHAPTER H. 
 The Universities and the Boroughs, 38 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 The Universities and the Central Government 68 
 
 Appendices 81, 82 
 
 Bibliography 86 
 
 -I 
 
1 1 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 When the thirteenth century opened there were in 
 Oxford a number of masters and scholars who had as- 
 sembled in that place for the purpose of study. Cam- 
 bridge soon after also showed signs of becoming a seat 
 of learning. The organization of these bodies was very 
 primitive, they had few customs to bind them together 
 and no statutes of their own making, for no body ex- 
 isted as yet which could make statutes. The bishop's 
 representative, the chancellor, however, served, even at 
 this early date, to give some unity to these gatherings. 
 Before, therefore, they could attract the attention of 
 the king they would have to attain a larger size and 
 more importance. During the early part of the thir- 
 teenth century, then, the universities may be regarded 
 as a body of students "held together rather by a loose 
 code of professional customs or etiquette than by any 
 formal body of written laws."' 
 
 Out of these slightly coherent bodies of scholars 
 grew, during the middle ages, the mighty corporations 
 of later times. During the thirteenth and fourteenth 
 centuries the universities gain royal, papal and episco- 
 pal recognition. They gain rights not enjoyed by the 
 niembers of the ecclesiastical organization in general. 
 They put on a corporate e.xistence, making statutes 
 binding upon their own members, receiving grants of 
 privileges and of land in their own name, and in the 
 world gaining recognition as powers to be cultivated 
 and encouraged. Within their respective towns they 
 become the dominant authorities, gathering to them- 
 selves many of the former borough rights and privileges 
 and gradually taking the place of the government of 
 these boroughs in some of their most important activi- 
 
 ' O. H. S. Collectanea, II., Rashdall, 193. 
 
ties. Both the towns of Oxford and Cambridge found 
 themselves hemmed in on all sides by the universities; 
 their petitions for redress were often disregarded, their 
 struggles for redress generally brought only a worse 
 fate upon them. 
 
 The end of the fourteenth century witnessed a vast 
 change in the relative position of the' opposing corpora- 
 tions. At the beginning of the thirteenth century the 
 universities had been weak, unorganized and unprivi- 
 leged; at he end of the fourteenth century they had 
 numerous students, a strong organization 'and many 
 rights. They now controlled the city markets of their 
 towns, the care of the streets and pavements was in 
 their charge, they had gained some police functions, 
 the town gaols were open for their use, and the townsmen 
 might not even rate their houses for the students to suit 
 themselves. Oxford had gained a complete immunity 
 from the power of the bishop and Cambridge was soon to 
 do likewise. Both had gained an exemption from the 
 royal and ecclesiastical judges in all but a few well 
 marked cases, so that their authority over their own 
 members was in many respects absolute. On the material 
 side also they had grown. Large amounts of money 
 and much land had been given them bv pious persons, 
 libraries were started, schools endowed and halls built 
 during this formative period of the universities. 
 
 This growth, in its main outlines, with special refer- 
 ence to the royal administration, is to be the subject of 
 this study. While many powers came from the grants 
 of the pope or bishop, the almost constant and unwaver- 
 ing attitude of favor on the part of the crown toward 
 the students is the great cause of this development 
 Without the royal interference the universities could 
 not have attained the great importance that thev finally 
 did attain, for it was not within the power of either the 
 popes or bishops to give to them the privileges they 
 obtained through the good will of the several kings of 
 England. 
 
Before proceeding to the organization and privileges 
 of these universities it will be necessary, first of all, to 
 consider the composition of these bodies, deciding, in 
 so far as it is possible, what persons or classes of per- 
 sons came within this organization and enjo^'ed these 
 privileges and also deciding within what limits these 
 privileges were exercised. The process of definition of 
 the terms scholar, scholar's servant and the like, was 
 gradual, increasing in accuracy and clearness as the 
 universities became more independent of outside con- 
 trol. 
 
 The most natural question and the first to be an- 
 swered was that of the content of the term scholar. 
 Were all the clergy who dwelt within the town to enjoy 
 the privileges of the university whether the came there 
 to study or for other reasons ? It must be understood 
 that the teaching body, the masters, always enjoyed all 
 the privileges of the university. The first definition of 
 a scholar is contained in the royal writs of the year 1231, 
 sent to both universities. In the case of Oxford the 
 motive of the action was the di.sturbance caused by cer- 
 tain men who pretended to be scholars, and as the Cam- 
 bridge writ is dated at Oxford, it is the direct result of 
 the troubles in that place. The sheriff vvas commanded 
 by the king to proclaim in his name that no clerk 
 should remain in the universities who was not under the 
 tuition of some master and any such found within the 
 town after a period of fifteen days was to be arrested 
 and imprisoned by the sheriff." In these orders Henry 
 III may have been only following a university cus- 
 tom, for later we find the same general principle em- 
 bodied in the statutes. About 1250,^ or later, the 
 university of Oxford passed a statute to the effect that 
 everv scholar should have his own master upon whose 
 roll his name must be entered and under whom he 
 
 ' Wood, Ainials. ed. Giitcli, I.. 206; Cooper, .Innals, I.. 41. 
 
 "Muniiiu'Hfa academica. I., 17. Anstey ascribes them to this 
 date. Rashdall, O. H. S., Coll.. II., 195, thinks them of a later 
 date; cf. Mun. acad., II., 444. 
 
8 
 
 should hear at least one lecture daily. A similar rule 
 was also m force in Cambridge. In the settlement of a 
 dispute between the university and the archdeacon of 
 Ely, of the year 1276, it is stated that the university had 
 made a statute commanding that no one should receive 
 a scholar who had not a fixed master within fifteen days 
 after his entrance into the university and whose name 
 was not upon the master's matriculation roll.* In the 
 Cambridge regulation express mention was made of the 
 royal command before noticed. Both universities pro- 
 vided that all infringements of these rules would sub- 
 ject the offender to imprisonment or expulsion 
 
 The name most frequently coupled with that of 
 scholar IS scholar's servant. That these early enjoyed 
 the privileges of the university cannot be doubted yet 
 It IS impossible to assign an exact date upon which they 
 were given the right to enjoy such rights for the first 
 time. It IS very probable that custom here, as else- 
 where antedated by many years the exact definitions 
 vvhich have come down to us. During the latter part of 
 the thirteenth century, however, their right to partici- 
 pate ,n the privileges of the scholars is^ecognized in 
 both universities. The eadiest extant definition is that 
 of the university of Cambridge. The decree of the 
 bishop of Ely, dated 1276, states that there is in force 
 a umversity statute providing "that the household serv- 
 ants of the scholars, the writers and others, who exer- 
 cise offices that are peculiarly assigned to the use of the 
 scholars shall enjoy the same exemptions and liberties as 
 the scholars, so as not to answer before the archdeacon 
 as neither do the scholars who are their masters "^ The 
 bishop further defines scholars' servants to mean those 
 residing m the houses with them, while serving them 
 >" person and also defines "writers and others" as 
 writers, illuminators, and stationers, who serve the 
 
 ' Cooper, I., 57. 
 
 "Ibid., I., 56-57; sec also Ibid., I.. 141 (1393-94). 
 
9 
 
 scholars only."'' Almost identically the same classes of 
 men are privileged along with the scholars in Oxford. 
 In 1290 the list of those enjoying the rights of the schol- 
 ars is stated by the king to include parchment makers, 
 illuminators, writers, barbers, and other men who wear 
 the same habit as the scholars.' The definition is made 
 still clearer in 1345, when it is laid down that the serv- 
 ants proper must dwell within the houses of the mas- 
 ters and scholars. At the same time the list of other 
 privileged persons is increased by the addition of the 
 six bedels and the four sworn stationers of the univer- 
 sity." 
 
 In both universities, therefore, the servants of the 
 scholars who lived with them or those artisans whose 
 trades had particularly to do with the scholars, enjoyed 
 their privileges and this continues to be the practice. 
 There are often two uses of the term scholar's servant, 
 one general, including all those who enjoy the privileges 
 of the university while not students ; the other special, 
 including only those who are, strictly speaking, servants. 
 The lists vary but little in later times. That of Oxford 
 in 1356" is the same as the earlier ones and though in 
 1454" and 1524" there are some new trades mentioned, 
 these are due rather to an extension of the above defini- 
 tion than to any new principle. In Cambridge also the 
 earlier definitions are preserved in later times.'- 
 
 The geographical limits within which the universities 
 exercised their authority over such persons were at 
 first indefinite. During the thirteenth century the 
 phrase, town and suburbs, seems to cover in a general 
 way these limits for Oxford." The word town is fairlv 
 
 " Cooper, L, 57. 
 
 ^ Mull, acad., I., ^a ; cf. Lvte. Histor\ of Oxford. 171. 
 • Ibid., I., 148. 
 Mbid., I., 175. 
 
 '"Rashdall, Hist, universities, II., II.. 409, note 4. 
 " Rogers, Oxford city documents, 53 sq. 
 
 "Cooper, I., 104 (1354); Ibid., I., 127, 141; Rot. pari, III., 
 335 b. 
 " Wood, I., 234. 
 
10 
 
 definite, especially when the walls enclosed it as was 
 the case in Oxford, but suburbs was likely to be very 
 vague. Contests arose in Oxford over the extent of 
 the latter term, the most noted being that between the 
 university and Richard d'Amory, who disputed the 
 claim of the chancellor to jurisdiction within the hun- 
 dred without the north gate of Oxford. In the settle- 
 ment of the matter, the hundred was defined to be with- 
 in the suburbs and thus the chancellor could exercise 
 his powers throughout its territory.^* An accurate de- 
 hneation of the boundaries within which the university 
 could exercise its chartered rights was given in 1401.^=^ 
 These were St. Bartholomew's Hospital, on the east, 
 to Botley, on the west, Godstow bridge, on the north, 
 and Badley Wood, on the south, a much larger area 
 being included than the former suburbs about the town. 
 Cambridge does not seem to have gained any fuller defi- 
 nition of its jurisdictional limits during the period under 
 discussion than that of the town and suburbs. 
 
 The actual management of the affairs of the univer- 
 sity was entrusted to the teaching body, the masters 
 or regents. Those who had taken the master's degree 
 but who were not actively engaged in teaching, the non- 
 regents, were a reserve body whose consent was neces- 
 sary to certain of the more important actions of the 
 universities."* In Oxford there were three bodies which 
 took part in the public business:'' the black congrega- 
 tion, composed of the regents in arts, which elected the 
 proctors, and as the previous congregation prepared 
 the statutes which were later to' be acted upon by the 
 other bodies; the congregation of regents or lesser 
 congregation, composed of the regent masters of all 
 the faculties, which elected the chancellor, transacted 
 the ordinary business of the university, financial or re- 
 
 "Mun. acad.. L, 173-180 (1356) ; cf. Ibid., I., 43-4S, fnr an ea 
 lier case. 
 
 w»Y°,'?^' ^- 5-^^' R'ishdall, op. cit.. II., II., 411. 
 ^MuUmgerMnivcrsity of Cambridge. I., 140, n 2 
 Rashdall, op. cit., II., II., 373 sq. ; Lyte, Hist. Ox., 233-234. 
 
11 
 
 lating to the teaching niethods, and which also acted 
 as a court of appeal froni the chancellor's court in cer- 
 tain cases ; and finally the congregation of regents and 
 non-regents or the great congregation, which was the 
 statute making body, the final court of appeal within 
 the university and the organization which had final con- 
 trol over all matters relating to the activities of the uni- 
 versity. In Cambridge there were but two congrega- 
 tions, that of the regents and that of tlie regents and 
 non-regents/* There was no previous congregation to 
 prepare legislation.'" In Cambridge, as in Oxford, the 
 congregation of regents was the active administrative 
 and governing body of the university, but the non-re- 
 gents had a greater share in this business than in Ox- 
 ford and even claimed a certain part in the election of 
 the chancellor. 
 
 The earliest grants made in the universities contain 
 the name of an official at their head, the chancellor. 
 Originally appointed by the bishop to watch over the 
 clergy assembled in Oxford or Cambridge for the pur- 
 pose of study, during the thirteenth century he became 
 the real head of these bodies, the president of their 
 greater congregations and the official recipient of many 
 of their privileges. His election gradually passed from 
 the hands of the bishop into those of the congregation 
 of regents, although his election had to be confirmed 
 by the bishop before he might assume the duties cif his 
 office. This last hold of the bishop over the chancellor's 
 election was taken away from the bishop of Lincoln in 
 1368,"" and from the bishop of Ely in 1401.-' He wa^ in 
 both cases, elected for two years from among the re- 
 gents of the university, the usual practice in Oxford 
 being to select a doctor of theology or of canon law 
 to fill the place.-- Though the chancellor became in the 
 
 " Mullinger, op. cit., I., 142-14^. 
 " Rashdall, op. cit.. II., II., 554. 
 '° Mun. acad., I., 228-230. 
 ■' Cooper, I., 146. 
 " Lyte, op. cit., 231. 
 
12 
 
 fullest sense the head of the university, it must be re- 
 membered that the origin of his power was episcopal 
 and also that he never seems entirely to amalgamate 
 with the university teaching body. He always appears 
 to be a power outside of it, giving his sanction to its 
 statutes and punishing its members through his own 
 special and peculiar privileges. In both bodies the 
 chancellor is nevertheless the chief administrative official 
 Next in importance to the chancellor were the proctors. 
 In each university these were two in number, elected 
 annually, in Oxford by the regents in arts," and in 
 Cambridge by the congregation of regents.--* They were 
 the real representatives of the universities, owing their 
 existence to those bodies alone. Their dutv it was to 
 watch over the obedience to the statutes ; thev summon- 
 ed the Black Congregation in Oxford, thev had general 
 charge of the administration of the finances of the uni- 
 versities, they exacted the fines incurred under the stat- 
 ues and attended to other matters of a like administrative 
 character.== When the chancellor received administra- 
 tive powers from the king they are generally associated 
 with him and in some cases, as in the case of the market 
 ni Oxford, they gradually superseded him. 
 
 The subordinate officials are not of much importance 
 with respect to this study. The bedels were the most 
 prominent among these minor officers. In Oxford they 
 "served writs and citations and conducted offenders to 
 prison, beside watching to see that the proper cere- 
 monies were observed upon all public occasions.='^ They 
 liad similar functions in Cambridge, and attended the 
 chancellor and proctors wherever these might go." 
 They were generally attached to some faculty of the uni- 
 versity. The taxors, four in number in Oxford, two in 
 
 '^' Lyte, op. cit., 231. 
 ■' Miillinger, op. cit., I., 144 
 
 -Mullmger op. cit I., ,44: Lyte, op. cit., 231; Rashdall, op. 
 '^'Vo'/'v "■• 372-.373; Mu». acad.. II., 486; and Ibid., I., no 
 
 '^ Lyte, op. cit.", 230. 
 "iMuIIinger, op. cit., I,, 144-145. 
 
13 
 
 Cambridge, were regents of the university elected for 
 the purpose of seeing to the fixing of the rent of the 
 inns and halls inhabited by the scholars. Their associa- 
 tion with the Cambridge proctors for the regulation of 
 
 some matters connected with the market is apart from ■ 
 
 their original position.-" The Oxford judicial system ! 
 
 gave rise to certain minor judicial ofificials, the judges 
 
 who tried civil suits known as the hebdomadarii. ; 
 
 These judges, one sitting each week, were doctors in ] 
 
 civil and canon law ; later, however, certain bachelors in 
 those faculties were admitted to the ofifice.-''The right 
 of direct appeal from their judgments to the chancellor 
 was always recognized. Cambridge allowed its masters 
 to try certain minor cases in which scholars were the 
 defendants, except when the latter renounced this juris- 
 diction.^" 
 
 ■' Mullinger, op. cit., I., 145. 
 ^ Lyte, op. cit., 2,32-233; Mun. acad., I.. 69. 
 "Rashdall, op. cit., II., II., 554; Docs, relating to the univ. and 
 colleges of Camb., I., 328. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Judicial Powers of the Chancellor. 
 
 The most prominent increase of university powers 
 under the fostering care of the central government was 
 that of the judicial privileges of the chancellor. With- 
 out the royal grants the chancellor could not have gain- 
 ed his wide authority over cases which ordinarily be- 
 longed to the royal or local justices ; without the aid of 
 the king he could not have efifectively enforced his judg- 
 ments ; and without his timely interference even the 
 chancellor's ecclesiastical jurisdiction might have been 
 greatly circumscribed and retarded in its development. 
 Only, indeed, from the central authority of the king- 
 dom could this aid come, for the local officials were 
 jealous and very often had good reason for feeling ag- 
 grieved and revengeful. If the latter could have had 
 their way in this matter the universities would have re- 
 mained mere unorganized gatherings of students with- 
 out coercive powers over even their own members. 
 That the universities did increase in importance and 
 strength, generally at the expense of some local author- 
 ity, is due for the most part to the action of the succes- 
 sive English kings living during the thirteenth and four- 
 teenth centuries, who, widely divergent in character as 
 they may be, had at least this one point in common, 
 they all favored these two great institutions of learning. 
 
 In its origin the judicial power of the chancellor was 
 ecclesiastical. -He was an episcopal official placed over 
 a body of clerics to regulate their conduct as the bishop's 
 representative. When this body grew to be an organ- 
 ized university his position changed and he was now the 
 head of the university with increased judicial powers 
 because of this position. He gained by this transforma- 
 tion certain rights over the various laymen whose trades 
 
15 
 
 connected them with the university and later by papal 
 grant, in Oxford, he was given jurisdiction over the 
 various ecclesiastics who would otherwise have been 
 exempt even from the episcopal courts.' After the uni- 
 versities had attained a certain prominence the crown be- 
 gan to grant judicial powers and to these grants the 
 chancellor owed his position of judge over cases other- 
 wise belonging to the courts of the royal justices. The 
 completed powers of the chancellor are, therefore, three- 
 fold in origin, ecclesiastical, university and royal, though 
 it must not be imagined that he ever made this distinc- 
 tion clear in practice. The great reason for the increase 
 of his privileges seems to be the influence of the royal 
 favor. The kings made large grants to the universities 
 and these appear to encourage the chancellor to claim 
 exemptions from the episcopal power and to seek bulls 
 of confirmation from the pope. Nothing, indeed, suc- 
 ceeded like success during the middle ages. Once given 
 rights the chancellor was led to usurp others, feeling 
 fairly sure that he would be supported in his usurpation. 
 And not alone the kings, but the other clergy did support 
 him. On account of the importance of the royal grants 
 they will be considered first, although the chancellor did 
 have a certain delegated ecclesiastical jurisdiction before 
 the universities had come under the notice of the crown. 
 In order to prevent confusion the two universities will be 
 considered separately. 
 
 The first royal grant of judicial powers to the chan- 
 cellor of Oxford was that of cognizance of certain civil 
 cases. By his letters patent of May lo, 1244,= Henry 
 III conferred upon him the right to try all cases arising 
 in Oxford or its suburbs, relating to controversies over 
 debts, the rent of houses, the price of victuals, horses, 
 or clothes and all other contracts of movables, to which 
 a clerk was a party. It is a matter of some doubt 
 whether this privilege referred to any cases other than 
 
 ' Rashdall. op. cit., II.. II.. 4.^0. 
 
 = Wood, I.. 234: Rashdall, op. cit,, II,, II.. 393-394- 
 
16 
 
 those to whicli the scholar was the defendant.^ The 
 grant, because of the actual jurisdiction it gave, as well 
 as because of its effect as a precedent, has been called 
 the magna charta of the university of Oxford.* In spite 
 of the long struggle of the English clergy for the right 
 of trying cases of contracts they never gained this power 
 and, therefore, in this his first great grant, Henry made 
 a differentiation of the university from the clergy of the 
 realm. And, indeed, he was the only power able to make 
 this change in policy. In the year 1260 the constable 
 of Oxford raised the point that the Jews did not come 
 imder this jurisdiction of the chancellor since "they did 
 not form a part of the ordinary community of the town."^ 
 A jury of inquisition being summoned upon the case, 
 it decided that the chancellor had full cognizance of all 
 bargains and contracts between the scholars and the 
 Jews, excepting those matters belonging to the crown 
 and pleas of land. Edward I, in his writ of the year 
 1275," gave to this authority over civil cases the form 
 it was to retain during the remainder of our period, with 
 some slight additions not affecting the principle. iBy 
 this grant the chancellor of O.xford was given the cog- 
 nizance of all personal actions to which either party was 
 a scholar, thus widening his authority if the former 
 grant was limited to cases where the scholars were de- 
 fendants. From this time forward, therefore, the chan- 
 cellor could summon the burgesses and other laymen 
 of the town to answer in his court for all cases where a 
 student was either plaintiff or defendant. The finding 
 of the jury of 1260 was also made permanent by the 
 same king in 1286 when he allowed the chancellor full 
 cognizance of all personal actions and contracts between 
 
 'Rashdall, op. cit., II., II., 398. 
 
 ' Lyte, op. cit., 42. 
 
 '"Wood, I., 260; O. H. S. Coll., II., Neubaiier, The Jews in 
 Oxford, 285. 
 
 " Ibid., I., 301-302; Rc/'ort dcj^uty kcef>cr pub. records, 44 (1883),, 
 ->07; confirmed 2 Ed. II., i Ed. III., 4 Rich. II. 
 
17 
 
 the scholars and the Jews.' He was given the power 
 of imprisonhig and excommunicating them and of call- 
 ing upon the constable of the castle to enforce his man- 
 dates. Although the powers of the chancellor, in this 
 respect, had been extended to the suburbs of Oxford, 
 the bailifif of the hundred without the north gate disput- 
 ed his rights within that district in 1288.** The king's 
 council, however, decided against this claim and removed 
 him from his office. Having brought the question of 
 the civil jurisdiction down to the year of the great settle- 
 ment, 1290, we shall now turn to the jurisdiction of the 
 chancellor over criminal cases. 
 
 In cases involving crimes the authority of the chancel- 
 lor was much slower in attaining definiteness than it 
 was in civil cases. The first steps toward tiiis jurisdic- 
 tion were not in themselves grants of jurisdictional 
 rights. A distinction was at first maile in favor of the 
 scholars. During the year 1248 Henry HI granted that 
 if an injury be done to a scholar the inquisition thereof 
 should be made by the neighboring villages as well as 
 by the burgesses of Oxford." This was to prevent the 
 passions of the burgesses from having full sway. More- 
 over, if a scholar should be slain the whole town should 
 be punished for the deed. The distinction thus made 
 between scholars and laymen was later made still clearer, 
 not by a royal charter or letters patent, but by a custom 
 which afterwards received the higher sanction. In 125 1 
 the king released two scholars from gaol and promised 
 that all scholars charged with light offenses should be 
 handed over to the chancellor, as vice-regent of the 
 bishop of Lincoln ; those accused of more serious crimes 
 were to be reserved for the bishop himself.'" During 
 the following years more scholars were released to the 
 
 ' O. H. S., Coll., II., Neuhauer. op. cit. 286; Cal. patent rolls 
 Ed. I., i2Si-gi, 236; Wood. I., 325. 
 
 "A/kh. acad.. I., 43-45; Wood. I.. 327. 
 
 "Wood, I., 238-23g: Oxford city docs.. Rogers, 212; confirmed 
 Cal. p. r., Ed. I.. I38l-()2, 258. 
 
 '"Ibid., I., 243; Lyte, op. cit., 45. 
 2 
 
18 
 
 chancellor to be tried "according to the custom of the 
 university."" Thus far the chancellor had gained 
 powers over the students alone and only over their 
 minor offences ; but this naturally led up to the royal 
 grants of 1255,'- when he was released from any surveil- 
 lance of the bishop, although he was given as yet no well 
 defined jurisdictional powers. If a layman gravely in- 
 jured a clerk, so ran the grant, he was to be placed in 
 Oxford castle to remain there until the chancellor and 
 imiversity were satisfied. If the injury was slight he was 
 to be imprisoned in the town gaol. Those scholars 
 who gravely or slightly injured a layman were subject to 
 a like imprisonment at the will of the chancellor. The 
 important point in this letter is not that he could 
 release scholars accused of light offenses, for he already 
 did this, but that he could now release scholars accused 
 of more serious crimes, and. especially, that he was given 
 powers over laymen. The latter, though not a case of 
 direct jurisdiction, would amount to the same thing, 
 for he might keep the laymen in prison until they fully 
 satisfied his demands. 
 
 The settlement of the chancellor's judicial powers over 
 such cases as have been mentioned which occurred in i2yo 
 was preserved with some additions and corrections dur- 
 ing the remainder of our period. To the parliament of 
 that year the burgesses, jealous of the increasing powers 
 of the university, made their complaints, and the king 
 acting as an arbitrator settled the points in dispute. ^^ 
 Answering the complaint of the mayor and burgesses 
 that the chancellor released men arrested and imprison- 
 ed for violence by the officials of the town, Edward de- 
 fined his criminal jurisdiction. The chancellor, hence- 
 forward, was to have cognizance of all trespasses in Ox- 
 ford, where a clerk was a party, except pleas of the 
 
 " Lyte, op. cit., 45 and notes 
 
 "Rogers, op. cit., 213-215; Stiibbs, Select charters, ed. 1895, 
 377-378; Rashdall, op. cit., II., II.. 394. 
 
 "A^<;. pari.. I., 33a; Mun. acad., I., 46-56; Rashdall, op. cit., 
 II., II., 401 ; confirmed 8 Ed. II., i Ed. III. 
 
19 
 
 death of a man and niayheni. These two cases are al- 
 ways excepted when grants are made to the chancellor, 
 a new formula entering under Richard II, however, 
 when he excepts felony and mayhem." Cases involving 
 a freehold were always free from the jurisdiction as they 
 were from that of any of the ecclesiastical courts. When 
 Pope Boniface IX, in 1395, confirmed the liberties of 
 the university he stated that cases of homicide, mutila- 
 tion and freehold were not within the cognizance of the 
 chancellor's court.''' Our suspicion that the chancellor 
 fined those laymen who had injured clerks and were in 
 consequence imprisoned, is confirmed by the complaint 
 of the burgesses that he only releases such men after 
 the payment of such heavy sums of money that they are 
 ruined. In answer to this petition the king connnanded 
 moderation. The chancellor also received a distinct 
 addition to his judicial authority over civil cases. He 
 was given the right to jurisdiction, where a scholar was a 
 party, over all persons passing through Oxford, and 
 who were not burgesses of that place, in cases of con- 
 tracts and trespasses made in Oxford. Further provi- 
 sions were added that the chancellor should not release 
 scholars imprisoned for mayhem or wounding until it 
 was assured that the victim was not about to die and, 
 also, that all burgesses should have at least one day's 
 notice to appear before his court. These being in ans- 
 wer to direct complaints show the excesses to which the 
 chancellor was liable. 
 
 As in other departments of the activity of the univer- 
 sity, the burgesses of Oxford continually found cause 
 for complaint in the exercise of the chancellor's judicial 
 powers. The latter also had reason to be annoyed at 
 the ill treatment and neglect of the townsmen. His 
 power being naturally weakest in the suburbs of Ox- 
 ford disorderly persons fled there, feeling safe from any 
 interference from the town ofificials. As they became 
 
 "Rashdall, II.. II.. 401. 
 "Mun. acad., I., 78-81. 
 
20 
 
 a source of trouble and of danger to such peaceful stu- 
 dents who might have to pass through the suburbs, the 
 chancellor petitioned parliament for redress and it was 
 ordered that the town officials should pursue and take 
 such persons in order to maintain the peace of the 
 university.'" In 1318 the preaching friars claimed to 
 be exempt from the jurisdiction of the chancellor by a 
 papal grant. The case being brought before Edward 
 II, he decided that such friars were subject to the chan- 
 cellor notwithstanding any grants of privileges from the 
 pope." The burgesses, on their part, complained that 
 the university courts attracted royal pleas, fining and 
 punishing those who accused scholars of felonies.'* 
 They also charged the chancellor with drawing to his 
 court contracts between laymen and complained that he 
 heavily fined the contestants and excommunicated all 
 those who refused to submit to his judgments.'" Other 
 complaints were made that he gained cognizance through 
 unlawful means of cases involving rents of free tene- 
 ments.-" The case of Walter de Harewell is a good ex- 
 ample of the way in which the chancellor abused his 
 power.-' This man was accused by a clerk, William 
 de Wyneye, of a crime done outside of the limits of the 
 chancellor's jurisdiction in a foreign country. Never- 
 theless the chancellor took cognizance of the case and, 
 in spite of the protests of Walter, committed him to 
 prison until he should consent to pay a sum of money 
 to William and until he should find sureties for his good 
 faith. When he had done this his misfortunes did not 
 end, for, having entered his house on his way to prison 
 in order to make secure his chests and doors, he in- 
 
 '"Rot. /.,iW,. I., .527a; O. H. S., Coll.. III., Smith, Pari, pet., 
 111-112; Cal. p. r., Bd. II., 1313-17, 3,21; cf. Ibid., Ed. III., 
 1327-30, 23. 
 
 "Wood, I., 309; Cal. close rolls, Ed. II.. 1318-23, 31. 
 
 "O. H. S., Coll.. III.. Smith, op. cit., 122 (circa 1320-22). 
 
 " Ibid., 126-127 (2 Ed. III). 
 
 " Ibid. 
 
 ='/?or. pari. II., i6b; O. H. S., Coll., III., Smith, op. cit., 128 
 (1328). 
 
21 
 
 curred the wrath of the chancellor and was banished 
 from the town and his goods seized. The latter also 
 threatened to imprison him for sixty days if he ever 
 again entered Oxford. The king interfered in this 
 case, ordering the angry chancellor not to pursue the 
 matter further. The jealousy of the local ofificials of 
 the university also showed itself in their reculance to 
 enforce the commands of the chancellor, for Edward III 
 has continually to admonish the sheriff and the mayor 
 and bailiffs to do their duty towards the university. "- 
 
 The last and greatest dispute over the chancellor's 
 judicial powers occurred during the years preceding 
 135O when he contended with Richard d'Amory for 
 authority over the hundred without the north gate of 
 Oxford. The dispute was a general one involving mat- 
 ters of market regulation and the care of roads as well 
 as the judicial affairs of the suburb. Richard claimed 
 to have cognizance of all offences against the peace com- 
 mitted within the hundred, with all the tines arising from 
 this jurisdiction. He included within these general 
 lines cases where a scholar or other privileged person 
 was a party, holding that the royal grants did not ex- 
 tend into his district. The matter came before Edward 
 in the parliament of 1356 and was settled there.-'' As 
 a result of this settlement the chancellor's jurisdiction 
 was defined to include this territory. In it he was given 
 cognizance of all cases of infringements of the university 
 statutes or other pleas where a scholar or scholar's serv- 
 ant, in the general sense, w^as a party, pleas of mavhem, 
 murder and freehold excepted. 
 
 The university received no new judicial powers during 
 the fourteenth century beyond those already mentioned. 
 Early in the fifteenth century a new judicial official, the 
 seneschal or steward, w^as given some new powers by 
 
 ''Cat. p. >:, Ed. III., I330-34' 208-209 (1331); Ibid., Ed. III., 
 1334-3S. 67 (1334). 
 
 '' Mun. acad., I., 173-180. 
 
22 
 
 Henry IV.-* When one of those who were not students 
 but who enjoyed their privileges was indicted for a 
 felony before one of the royal justices, the chancellor 
 was allowed henceforth to demand the man so that he 
 might be tried before his appointee, the steward, in ac- 
 cordance with the laws of the land. The jury in such 
 cases was to consist half of privileged persons and half 
 of townsmen. 
 
 The development of the judicial power of the univer- 
 sity of Cambridge was in some respects much more 
 slow than in Oxford, yet the final result is about the 
 same in both universities. The first signs of the future 
 criminal jurisdiction of the chancellor appear in 1268 
 when it was enacted, as for Oxford in 1255, that in the 
 event of a layman seriously injuring a clerk, or a clerk 
 a layman, the culprit was to be imprisoned until satis- 
 faction had been rendered according to the ideas of the 
 chancellor."^ The authority thus given to the chancel- 
 lor would have the result noticed in the case of Oxford, 
 that is, it would amount to a grant of the right to fine 
 and punish, for the prisoner might not be released until 
 he had fully satisfied the demands of the university of- 
 ficial. That Edward I allowed this privilege is shown 
 by the fact that during his reign certain clerks, imprison- 
 ed in the Tower of London, were, upon the chancellor's 
 request, handed over to him.-" The complaint was made, 
 moreover, in 1293 that a layman imprisoned by the lat- 
 ter had been released by the town officials.-' The power 
 of imprisoning and detention formerly limited to grave 
 injuries was, in 1317, extended to those of a less serious 
 nature, but no grant of any authority to try criminal 
 cases was made at the time.^-^ Some further enactments 
 were included intended to preserve order within the 
 
 "Rashdall, op. eit., II., II., 409-410; Statutes of the colleges 
 of Oxford, III., 50. 
 '^ Cooper, I., 50-51. 
 =Mbid., I., 62 (1289). 
 -'Ibid., I., 67. 
 ^ Ibid., I., 75-76. 
 
23 
 
 town. No burgess should knowingly hide a transgressor 
 against a scholar.-'-' Those bailiffs who neglected to do 
 their duty when a scholar was injured or slain should be 
 fined together with the townsmen.'"' The succeeding 
 king, Edward III, finally gave the university some more 
 positive powers. During the year 1352 he granted that 
 the chancellor of Cambridge should have cognizance of 
 all trespasses and excesses, where one party was a 
 clerk, excepting cases of mayhem and felony."' This 
 promising beginning was not destined to last, for dur- 
 ing the following year it was repealed as being injurious 
 to the interests of Queen Isabella, to whom the fee-farm 
 of the town had been granted.^- The reason for this 
 was that the revenues of the borough would be diminish- 
 ed by the withdrawal of the fines from its court. In 
 1354 Edward sent letters close to the justices of the 
 peace for the county of Cambridge commanding them 
 to supersede all processes in their courts against sta- 
 tioners, book binders, writers and illuminators, connect- 
 ed with the university, except in cases of felony and 
 mayhem, the cognizance of all such cases belonging to 
 the chancellor, as had been accustomed.''^ This is pos- 
 sibly the royal recognition of the growth of a university 
 custom, allowing the chancellor to try cases in which 
 such privileged persons were defendants, although no 
 official record of such a privilege can be found. At most 
 it was a limited jurisdiction. Nevertheless it was not 
 until 1383, long years after Oxford had received this au- 
 thority, that Cambridge finally received its full right of 
 trying criminal cases. Richard II, in that }ear, conferred 
 upon the chancellor the cognizance of all cases of tres- 
 pass and misdemeanor, done within the town of Cam- 
 bridge or its suburbs, where a scholar or other privileged 
 
 " Cooper, I., 75-76. 
 '" Ibid. 
 
 " Ibid., I., 103; Dyer, Privileges of tin' tiniv. of Cainbr., I., 19. 
 I., 19. 
 'Mbid., I., 104. (135,^). 
 ^' Ibid., I.. 104; Docs. rcl. uiiiv. and coll. Canibr., I., 21. 
 
24 
 
 person was a party .^* There some examples recorded 
 soon afterwards of the chancellor using this power to 
 have cases removed to his court for trial and in this 
 state the matter rests for our period. "'■ 
 
 The growth of the chancellor's jurisdiction over civil 
 cases was not so far behind that of Oxford as was the 
 development of the powers already described. The uni- 
 versity sent a petition to the parliament of 1304 that 
 their cliancellor might have the cognizance of cases of 
 contracts and covenants between scholars and laymen, 
 the royal prohibition not to run in such cases. ^^ To 
 this Edward I answered tliat they should have such 
 powers as the university of Oxford had and he followed 
 this up with the actual grant tluring the next year, 1305.''' 
 The members of the university were then given the right 
 to cite the burgesses of the town before the chancellor's 
 court for all personal actions, the king promising not 
 to hinder such actions by his prohibition. The let- 
 ter patent of the year 13 17 was still more definite. This 
 grant allowed "that all causes of clerks concerning loans, 
 gifts and receipts, the taxing or leasing of houses, 
 the hire, sale or loan of horses, cloth or victuals, and 
 all other contracts respecting movable things happen- 
 ing in the town or suburbs, should be decided before the 
 chancellor of the university only."^* Edward III further 
 made a grant of full power over personal actions in 1327.^* 
 
 In Cambridge, as in Oxford, the growth of the chan- 
 cellor's power was attended with certain excesses on his 
 part which caused a feeling of jealousy to arise in the 
 town. The burgesses complained in 1327 that the clerks 
 of the university bought up actions of debt, trespass and 
 contracts of the burgesses and of strangers and cited 
 
 " Cooper, I., 127. 
 
 "Ibid., I., 140 (1391); Ibid., 147 (1401); Ibid., I., 159 (1417). 
 
 ''Rot. pari. I., i6ib. 
 
 "Cooper, I., 71; CaL p. r.. Ed. I., 1301-0/ , 317; repeated in 
 Ibid., Ed. II., 1315-17. 102 (1314). 
 
 "Ibid., I., 76; Cal. p. r., Ed. II., 1313-17. 620; cf. Cooper, I., 
 95 (1343). 
 
 "Cal. p. >:, Ed. III., 1327-^0. 61 (1327). 
 
25 
 
 these men to appear before the chancellor's court, the 
 latter enforcing their appearance by ecclesiastical cen- 
 sures.'"' The chancellor was at once commanded to 
 forbid such action as it was contrary to the law of the 
 land. The recurrence of such complaints at both uni- 
 versities leads to the belief that the scholars were doing 
 a little profitable speculation, thinking, doubtless, to re- 
 ceive a favorable verdict in the chancellor's court. That 
 they should even do this openly casts a reflection upon the 
 impartiality of this court. There was also some cause 
 for complaint on the other side. The chancellor and 
 university in 1389 complained to parliament of the mis- 
 deeds of the burgesses.*^ They stated tliat the chancel- 
 lor had been given cognizance of all personal actions and 
 misdemeanors, except mayhem and felony, and that 
 several scholars, having been indicted by the townsmen 
 for crimes within the above limits the said indictments 
 were quashed. Thereupon the townsmen indicted the 
 chancellor and proctors for felony and would even have 
 seized the former had he not fled. It was also charged 
 that the burgesses accused the university olilicials in the 
 courts upon the sligi.test pretexts and on that account 
 they asked that they might not be indicted for any offences 
 before the townsmen. 
 
 The year 1383, which witnessed the first complete 
 grant of criminal jurisdiction, was also, and in the same 
 grant, the year of the more accurate definition of the 
 civil jurisdiction of the chancellor. Because of the 
 vagueness of the privileges of the latter in cases where 
 a scholar was a party, some of the royal justices had dis- 
 allowed these powers. In consequence of a complaint 
 to the king to this effect he granted to them in the 
 above year the following privileges, or, we might say, 
 definition of privileges.-" The chancellor, or his deputies, 
 were to have the right of trying all manner of personal 
 
 '" Cooper, I., 82. 
 *'Rot. pari, III., 260. 
 " Cooper, I., 127. 
 
pleas, debts and all contracts and injuries as well as of 
 trespasses against the peace and misdemeanors done in 
 Cambridge or its suburbs, where a master, scholar, 
 scholar's servant or common minister of the university 
 was a party. Such pleas were to be held where the 
 chancellor might see fit in the town or suburbs, and he 
 might judge them according to the laws and customs of 
 the university. All royal justices were commanded to 
 allow the chan<;ellor and his successors the full cogni- 
 zance of all such cases and were forbidden to interfere 
 unless he be found to be unjust. Those convicted were 
 to be imprisoned in the Castle of Oxford or in any place 
 in the town where the chancellor might desire them to be 
 placed and the sheriff and the mayor and bailiffs were 
 ordered to receive and keep such prisoners, who might be 
 sent to either the castle or the town gaol. This is the 
 fullest and most complete statement of the chancellor's 
 judicial powers that is extant for our period. 
 
 There is in Cambridge a curious example of an ex- 
 empt jurisdiction within that of the chancellor which has 
 no parallel in Oxford. In 1276 there arose a dispute be- 
 tween the master of glomery, the superintendent of the 
 grammar schools and the chancellor of the university. 
 Hugh de Balsham, bishop of Ely, settled the matter by 
 the followong decision. ^^ In cases of disputes where 
 two glomerals, the grammar school boys, were the par- 
 ties, or when they were the defendants in cases with 
 scholars or townsmen, the master of glomery was given 
 jurisdiction. If, however, the case involved the rent of 
 houses rated by the masters and burgesses, or some grave 
 crime, the chancellor was to have jurisdiction of the 
 matter, as he should also have if when a scholar was 
 the plaintiff, the latter should appeal to him. Natur- 
 ally in all cases where the scholars were defendants the 
 chancellor's court had full jurisdiction, nevertheless this 
 court could not interfere in any of the above cases where 
 
 "Cooper, I., 56-58; Fuller, Hist. Cambr., 47-51; Rashdall, op. 
 cit., II., II., 555. 
 
27 
 
 the glomerals or townsmen alone constituted tlie contest- 
 ants. 
 
 The same period which witnessed the growth of the 
 lay jurisdiction of the chancellor also witnessed his rise 
 into prominence as an ecclesiastical judge. Although 
 it must be acknowledged that royal grants or interfer- 
 ence play but little part in this development, the know- 
 ledge of the favorable attitude of the crown toward the 
 universities, seems to have been the strongest incentive 
 leading the chancellor to strive for additional powers in 
 other directions. In dealing with the chancellor's juris- 
 diction over ecclesiastical cases it will be necessary to 
 confine most of our attention to O.xford. The Cam- 
 bridge records are meagre in the first place, and, more- 
 over, that university remains to a greater exent under 
 the control of the bishop during our period than does 
 Oxford. 
 
 Until the year 1214 nothing definite is known of the 
 relations between the universit\ of Oxford and the 
 bishop of Lincoln. At that time a subordinate of the 
 bishop, the chancellor, is mentioned as being "set over" 
 the scholars to exercise over them the powers which the 
 bishop would otherwise directly enjoy. Perhaps be- 
 cause of the distance of Oxford from the episcopal city 
 and partly, perhaps, because of the growing independence 
 of the university in other matters through royal grants, 
 this institution during the following decades developed 
 a number of customs which, to a large e.xtent, interfered 
 with the episcopal authority within its limits. By the 
 year 1280 the university regarded its position strong 
 enough to contest the authority of the bishop over its 
 members." The congregation in that year declared 
 the following rights to have been theirs since time out 
 of mind : that a scholar of the university might cite his 
 adversary before the chancellor's court and that the de- 
 fendant must answer there, that the probate of the 
 wills of scholars belonged of right to the chancellor, 
 
 "Mini. acad.. I., 41-4.V. R.Tslulall, op. cit., II., II., 422. 
 
28 
 
 that to the chancellor belonged the right of investigation 
 into the moral misdeeds of the scholars, and that no 
 master or scholar could be compelled to appear before 
 an\' other than the chancellor's court for contracts en- 
 tered into within the university. This usurpation of 
 power, for it was no less, was resisted by the bishop, 
 but, during the ensuing year these claims were ratified 
 bv a provincial synod of Canterbury, the only practical 
 power left to the bishop being that of hearing appeals 
 from the university courts.^' At the end of the thir- 
 teenth century, therefore, the chancellor had gained an 
 almost independent position with respect to the epis- 
 copal judicial powers. 
 
 Not until a later period did the university gain an 
 exemption from the interference of the archdeacon of 
 O.xford. Certain customs seem to have grown up here 
 as in the case of the episcopal authority which were not 
 acknowledged to exist by the archdeacon. When car- 
 dinal de Mota was made archdeacon in 1312-13, he did 
 not come to England but sent deputies who made them- 
 selves extremely obnoxious by their extortions. '•^ The 
 university in 1325 began to resist their authority*' and 
 continued the fight until the controversy was settled by 
 a compromise in 1345,** after the king had several times 
 interceded with the pope on behalf of Oxford.*" In the 
 above year it was decided that the chancellor was to 
 have "archidiaconal authority over all doctors, masters 
 and scholars, religious and lay, as also over all rectors, 
 vicars and chaplains within the university, unless they 
 held cures in O.xford, in which case they were subject- 
 ed to the ordinary jurisdiction of the archdeacon. "''' 
 The chancellor was also to liave jurisdiction over a well 
 <lefined list of scholars' servants and other privileged 
 
 *'" Raslidall, op. cit., II., II., 422-423. 
 
 '°0. H. S., Coll., I., 16-19. 
 
 " Wood, I., 407-408. 
 
 "A/h«. acad., I., 148-152. 
 
 "Hardy, Syllabus, I., 234; I., 251. 
 
 '"' O. H. S., 'Cull. I., 19. 
 
29 
 
 persons except in cases involving the wills of writers, 
 which were reserved to the archdeacon. Over all per- 
 sons coming under the chancellor's general authority, 
 but not included in the above list, the archdeacon was to 
 have the rights pertaining to his office. ^^ This is the 
 last definition of the chancellor's ecclesiastical jurisdic- 
 tion until the final statement of the pope in 1395, when 
 he exempted the university from the jurisdiction of all 
 archbishops, legates, bishops and other ecclesiastical 
 judges.^- By this bull the pope also gave to the chan- 
 cellor judicial authority over "exempt persons such as 
 the mendicants and monks of exempt monasteries, and 
 exempt cases, such as assaults on clerks. "^^ 
 
 The question of appeals has already been slightly 
 noticed. The bishop, as was then said, could be appeal- 
 ed to after the university courts had failed to give satis- 
 faction. Even this practice soon died out and in 1368 
 the course of appeals was said to be as follows: appeal 
 in all cases, temporal or spiritual should be from any of 
 the chancellor's deputies to the chancellor himself, from 
 him to the congregation of regents, from their decision 
 to the congregation of regents and non-regents and 
 finally from their judgment in civil cases to the king and 
 to the pope in spiritual matters.'"* The king also, in 
 order to strengthen this university right of deciding its 
 own cases, forbade other ecclesiastical courts to enter- 
 tain cases pertaining to the chancellor's jurisdiction.^' 
 and also forbade any one to appeal out of the kingdoni 
 cases belonging to this same official.'*'* 
 
 While the university of Cambridge was far behind 
 Oxford in gaining exemption from the episcopal author- 
 ity, it preceded the latter by many years in the settle- 
 
 " Mun. acad., I.. 148-15J; Wilkins, Concilia. II., 526-528; O. 
 H. S., Coll., I., 16-19; Rashdall, op. cit.. II., II.. 423 n. 2. 
 "Ibid., I., 78-80; Rashdall, op. cit., II., II., 430. 
 "Rashdall, op. cit., II., II., 430. 
 •■■'.1/wii. acad., I., 2i0-2i2. 
 ''Wood, I., 478 (1362). 
 "Ibid., 1,480 (1367); I.. 515 (1384)- 
 
30 
 
 ment of its relations with the archdeacon. A contro- 
 versy having arisen between the university and the arch- 
 deacon ol Ely concerning their respective jurisdictions, 
 the matter was, in 1276, referred to Hugh de Belsham, 
 the bishop of Ely, and by him settled. °' It seems that 
 a custom had grown up in the university by which 
 neither the scholars nor their servants appeared before 
 the archdeacon for their misdeeds. After strictly de- 
 fining the privileged classes, the bishop enacted that they 
 should, as in former times, appear before the chancellor, 
 while their families should answer to the archdeacon for 
 all cases belonging to his jurisdiction. All the clergy 
 holding cures in Cambridge, as in Oxford later, were to 
 be subject to the archdeacon's authority. Those, how- 
 ever, who came to the town for the purpose of studying 
 there were subject to the chancellor. At the end of this 
 settlement the bishop expressly reserves to himself or 
 to his official all appeals in ecclesiastical matters. The 
 commanding tone of the document illustrates very well 
 the strong position of the bishop at this time. 
 
 The bishop of Ely, within whose diocese Cambridge 
 lay, long held this position of control over the univer- 
 sity. It must not be understood that this control meant 
 an active interference in the minutiae of university af- 
 fairs, for the chancellor was the bishop's rep'-esentative 
 in all such matters. Moreover, custom, as elsewhere, 
 would tend to make the position of the university inde- 
 pendent in all but exceptional cases, long before 
 the bishop would have acknowledged any formal 
 rights. During the thirteenth century the bishop 
 heard appeals from the decisions of the chancellor, °* de- 
 cided disputes between the latter and the masters, °° 
 and interfered in other ways ; but during the fourteenth 
 century he forbade frivolous appeals to himself by the 
 scholars and others under the chancellor's jurisdiction.®" 
 
 "Cooper. I.. =;6-=;8; Fuller, op. cit.. 47 sq. 
 ""Rashdall. op. cit.. II., II., 549. 
 "Cooper, I., 67 (1294). 
 "Ibid., I., 94 (1341). 
 
31 
 
 Some find in the papal bull of 1318 an exemption of the 
 chancellor from the supervising power of the bishop, 
 yet it has to be acknowledged that this exemption was 
 not recognized by the bishops of Ely during the period 
 following that date." It was not until 1392 that the 
 king commanded the bishop not to send citations in- 
 terfering with the chancellor's court''- and it was not un- 
 til 1433 that the chancellor had his exclusive ecclesiasti- 
 cal jurisdiction finally recognized by the pope."" 
 
 As a lay judge and as an ecclesiastic, as we have seen, 
 the chancellor had gained wide judicial powers. His 
 position as the head of the university included yet other 
 judicial duties which may, in theory at least, be distin- 
 guished from the above cases. He had the power to 
 punish the students under certain of the university 
 statutes, which power was due solely to the position of 
 these bodies. His authority over the servants of schol- 
 ars and over the various privileged artisans can also 
 be referred to this side of his three-fold position. In 
 the main, however, this distinction is theoretical, being so 
 interwoven with his other powers as to be hardly distin- 
 guished from them. It is also of very little importance 
 from the standpoint of this study. 
 
 The course of the development of the several judi- 
 cial privileges of the chancellor having been traced, his 
 means of enforcing these must be shown. Some coer- 
 cive power was absolutely necessary so that he might 
 bring an offending scholar to terms if the latter should 
 refuse to obey his summons to appear at court. In this 
 section some attention w'ill also be paid to the means 
 of punishment in the hands of the university officials. 
 
 As an ecclesiastic the chancellor had various means 
 of punishing offenders and of enforcing his judgments. 
 Being a judge in a clerical court he could impose the 
 various penalties and punishments peculiar to the 
 
 *' Mullinger. Univ. of Cambridge, I., 145-146. 
 
 "B.M. MSS., •;S45, fol. 258; Rashdall, op. cit., II., II., 549-550. 
 
 "Cooper. I., 185. 
 
32 
 
 clergy ; he could and did imprison the scholars, as we- 
 have seen him doing in the thirteenth century; and he 
 could inflict the greatest punishment in the hands of an 
 ecclesiastic, excommunication, upon those who dis- 
 pleased him or who refused to obey his commands. 
 
 During the thirteenth century the chancellors of both 
 universities lacked the episcopal privilege of calling 
 upon the secular arm to enforce their excommunications, 
 yet they, nevertheless, did excommunicate men."* The 
 first step taken by Oxford was to gain the assistance 
 of the bishop and archbishop for enforcing its judg- 
 ments. In 1279 the archbishop of Canterbury promised 
 that all persons excommunicated by the chancellor of 
 Oxford should be delivered to him no matter in what 
 diocese they might be.*^ Seemingly this was not suffi- 
 cient, for in 1295 the chancellor asked the aid of several 
 of the bishops separately and some of them promised to 
 take from the clerks the fruits of their livings if they 
 should persist in their refusal to submit to the chan- 
 cellor."" 
 
 The most efTectual mode of enforcing excommunica- 
 tion was to gain the aid of the secular power through 
 the grant of the writ named "de excommunicato ca- 
 piendo." As often used, excommunication was in a way 
 the last resort, the outlawry, of the ecclesiastic and it 
 was necessary that it should be efficient. If, therefore, 
 the man under the ban refused to appear after forty 
 da\'s had elapsed, the crown granted that the bishop 
 might, by his writ, call upon the sheriff to take and im- 
 prison the guilty man until he satisfied the claims of the 
 church."' The right to have this writ was given to the 
 chancellor of Oxford bv Edward II for a term of five 
 
 "Wood, I., 262 (1262); Ibid., I., 317 (1283); Cooper, I., 59 
 (1278). 
 
 " Mun. acad.. I., 341. 
 
 " Wood I., 347. 
 
 "Makower, Cons. hist, of the church of England, 437; Stiibbs, 
 Cons. htst.. ed. 1896, III., 357; .Maitland, Roman canon lazv. 58-59 
 
33 
 
 years,"** and the grant was renewed with great regularity 
 during the fourteenth century until Henry IV bestowed 
 it for twenty-five years.''" Cambridge does not seem to 
 have gained tlie right to demand this writ before 1383, 
 for in 1382 the chancellor appealed to the bishop of Ely 
 to send letters of notification to the king concerning 
 certain of his excommunications.'" But in 1383 Richard 
 II gave him the right to signify his excommuni- 
 cations directly to the chancellor of England, who would 
 issue the writ named "in the same manner as the chan- 
 cellor of the university of Oxford has the like privi- 
 lege."'' 
 
 Disorderly and riotous students and those breaking 
 the statutes in various ways were by the terms of the 
 university regulations subject to various punishments, 
 such as fines'- or imprisonment.^^ The greatest penalty 
 indicated in the statutes, banishment from the town, 
 seems to have been assumed upon analogy with the 
 practice of the town, it being the most effectual means 
 of cutting off the offender from the rights and privileges 
 of the university.''' 
 
 The chancellor as a lay judge was in a peculiar posi- 
 tion. Though he was the holder of an exempt jurisdic- 
 tion, he had no prison of his own, not even an ecclesias- 
 tical gaol and he had but few police officials to aid him. 
 It was, therefore, necessary that, although he was a 
 cleric exercising ecclesiastical powers, he should be 
 fitted into the administrative machinery of the lay 
 power. 
 
 Almost from the beginnings of the university we find 
 that the mayor and bailiffs of the two towns are expect- 
 
 "O. H. S. Coll. III., Smith, Pari, pet., 121-122; cf. Ibid., 96. 
 "Wood, I., 536 (1399) ; other examples— Ibid., I., 433, 437, 443, 
 479, etc. 
 '-Cooper, I., 126. 
 " Cal. p. r.. Rich. II., 1381-83. 241. 
 '" Mutt, acad'., I., 304-306, 314, 506, 666. 
 " Ibid., I., 94. 
 "'Ibid., I., 119, 122, 127; Cooper, I., 57; Rot. pari., II., i6b 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 ed to assist the chancellor in arresting disorderly stu- 
 dents, the roval commands soon leaving no room for 
 doubt upon this point." The sheriff also from an early 
 date could be called upon by the chancellor to aid him. 
 in 1 23 1 both the universities were given the right to 
 cite the sheriff of the counties to their assistance with 
 this difference, that while the chancellor of Cambridge 
 had to ask for this aid through the bishop of Ely,'" the 
 chancellor of Oxford could himself call directly upon the 
 sheriff." Since the process of summoning the sheriff 
 through the bishop would be slow work at best, the 
 Cambridge grant was soon amended, the chancellor 
 being given the right of direct citation.'* A reversal of 
 this policy occurred in 1249,"' when Henry revoked 
 his former grant, but it was again renewed in 1255.*" 
 In both universities during the remainder of our period 
 the sheriff's aid was at the command of the chancellor 
 whenever it was deemed necessary to enforce order.*' 
 Ordinarily, however, the chancellor would not need the 
 assistance of the sheriff, his own officials and the mayor 
 and bailiffs being sufficient to make all necessary ar- 
 rests. 
 
 The lack of a prison within which the chancellor 
 could imprison malefactors was remedied in a similar 
 fashion. Henry HI commanded the mayor and bailiffs 
 of Oxford to place the town gaol at the disposal of the 
 chancellor so that he might place in it his rebellious 
 clerks.*- In the twenty-first year of the same king's 
 reign he ordered that the royal prison in Oxford should 
 
 "Rogers, op. cit., 212 (1248); Cooper, I., 44 (1242); Ibid., 
 I., 50 (1260'). 
 
 "Royal letters Henry III., Shirley, I., 396-397. 
 
 "Ibid., I., 399. 
 
 ■"Cooper. I., 44 (1242). 
 
 ■Mbid., I., 45. 
 
 "" Ibid., I.. 46. 
 
 "B. M. MSS., Faustina. C. III., fol. 133 sq. ; the same com- 
 mand repeated for Cambridge, 52 Henry III., 21 Ed. I., 10 Ed. 
 II., 20 Ed. II.. I Ed. III.. 17 Rich. II., etc.; for Oxford, see 
 Wood, I., 385, 404, 495. 
 
 ''Wood, I., 205 (15 Henry III.). 
 
35 
 
 be open to the chancellor for the same purpose." A 
 more definite grant was made during the year 1255, 
 when he directed that in cases of slight injuries of a 
 student the offending clerk or layman should be im- 
 prisoned in the town gaol, while for graver injuries they 
 were to be imprisoned in Oxford castle.'** At the end 
 of the thirteenth century it may be assumed that the 
 chancellor of Oxford had full rights in both the gaol 
 and castle. Yet here again internal jealousies made 
 themselves felt. The chancellor made the charge that, 
 through the connivance of the mayor and bailiffs, the 
 men he had sent to the town gaol were released, or, at 
 least, allowed to escape. ^'^ On the other hand the bur- 
 gesses complained of the harsh treatment of their fellow 
 townsmen by the chancellor.'*" Even the sheriff had his 
 cause for complaint, which was that the castle was over- 
 crowded because of the excessive use of it by the chan- 
 cellor as a place of imprisonment for trivial ofifenders.^'^ 
 During the thirteenth century it seems that the Cam- 
 bridge only gained the use of the town gaol.** The 
 castle of Cambridge was opened to him in 1317, because 
 of the ill treatment accorded to those students impris- 
 oned in the town gaol.*" After Edward III had con- 
 firmed this privilege,"" the burgess, in 1327, complained 
 to parliament that the chancellor's right of imprisoning 
 laymen in the castle was repugnant to their borough 
 privilege of not being impleaded without the town of 
 Cambridge ; the castle being outside of the town 
 limits.^' But the protest was of no avail. When Rich- 
 ard II came to the throne he gave the university a char- 
 
 "' Rot. claus.. 21 Henry III., m. igA. 
 
 " Rogers, op. cit., 213-215. 
 
 '"O. H. S. Coll.. III., Smith, op. cit., 118; Rot. farl., I., 373a; 
 O. H. S., Coll., I., 125. 
 
 *°Mmh. acad., I., 50 (1290). 
 
 "'O. H. S. Coll.. III., Smith, op. cit., n4 (1334); Rot. pari., 
 U.. 76b 
 
 "E. g. Cooper, I., 50-51 (1268). 
 
 "Cal. p. r.. Ed. 11., 1313-17, 665. 
 
 •» Cooper. I., 82-83 (1327). 
 
 " Ibid., I., 90. 
 
36 
 
 ter fully and fiiiall\' confirming the right of the chancel- 
 lor to imprison all persons convicted before him in the 
 castle of Cambridge, or elsewhere, as he might see fit, and 
 the sherifif and town officials were commanded to re- 
 ceive and guard such prisoners."- The usual complaints 
 of mutual ill treatment also occur here. In 1335 the 
 university claimed that the prisoners were released by 
 the town ofificials,"'' and the king had to send an order 
 to them that no such releases should be made until the 
 chancellor had demanded the prisoners."* If they re- 
 fused to obey the king threatened dire punishment. 
 
 There is one interesting example of the royal meas- 
 ures in favor of the university, which must be noticed 
 before leaving the question of the chancellor's power of 
 imprisoning. Henry de Harwedon, the chancellor of 
 Cambridge, in 1334, sent to prison a scholar named 
 William de Wyvelingham. William considered himself 
 ill treated and brought suit in the royal courts against 
 Henry and received iioo damages. The chancellor at 
 once appealed from this judgment, claiming the power 
 to imprison the scholars and their servants for their 
 crimes. The matter was finally brought before the par- 
 liament of 1338."'' The results of this suit were felt in 
 both universities. Edward III granted to Oxford in 
 1336, that the chancellor should not be imprisoned or 
 disturbed because of any false imprisonment, as had 
 lately happened i nCambridge."" The Cambridge chan- 
 cellor received a like immunity in 1343, also on account 
 of the above case."' Whether the king had the power 
 to grant this privilege is extremely doubtful, for it was 
 not the royal policy to cut ofT all chances of redress, but 
 
 '" Cooper, I., 127 (1383)- 
 
 "Ibid.. I., 88. 
 
 "Cat. c. r., Ed. 111., 1333-37, 559-560; cf. Rot. farl , I., 381a 
 (13^0). 
 
 "■ Cooper, I., 86, 91 ; Cal. c. r., Ed. III., 1333-37, 703-704, 704, 
 726, 727, 733; Rot. pari, II., 97a. 
 
 "Wood, I., 433; ibid., I., 487 (1374). 
 
 *' Cooper, I., 95. 
 
37 
 
 the phrase, "in so far as in the power of the king," which 
 is added, may be the saving clause. 
 
 Cases might possibly arise, however, in which all 
 these various safeguards might prove unavailing. It is 
 stated that certain men, having perpetrated misdeeds 
 while within the range of the chancellor's authority, re- 
 move themselves from the town and suburbs to con- 
 tinue their evil deeds where no effective remedy can be 
 had. In order that such a scholar or other person might 
 be brought to terms, a grant was made to 0.xford 
 in 1341.'"* The chancellor was given the right to certify 
 the names of such malefactors to the royal chancery, 
 which would then see that justice was done. It is ex- 
 pressly added that the privileges of the university are to 
 be in no wise prejudiced by the exercise of this privi- 
 lege. 
 
 The chancellor, as might be supposed, used his vari- 
 ous powers of coercion and imprisonment in whatever 
 way suited him best. Because his power of excommu- 
 nication was due to his position as an ecclesiastical judge 
 would and did not deter him from using it in temporal 
 cases. The fact that his judicial authority was a mi.x- 
 ture of lay and ecclesiastical powers would lead natur- 
 ally to a confusion of the two in practice. Indeed, the 
 chancellor used his greatest clerical weapon against 
 laymen for various crimes within his jurisdiction, "'* as 
 he also did against the town officials for not preserv- 
 ing the peace,""' and, moreover, he used it as a means 
 of compelling the townsmen to bend to his will.'"' The 
 king himself seems to aid this confusion, when, in 1355, 
 he allowed the chancellor of Oxford to enforce the 
 cleansing of the streets by ecclesiastical censures.'"- 
 
 "' Cai p. 1:, Ed. III., 1340-43. 309-310. 
 
 "O. H. S., Coll. III., Smith, op. cit., 126-127; ibid., 122. 
 
 ""Wood, I., 202, 317-MS. 
 
 '""Cooper, I., =;9; O. H. S., Coll.. III., 122, 137. 
 
 "'Rot. chart., 2<i Ed. III., No, 3. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 The Universities and the Boroughs. 
 
 The relation of the universities to the towns within 
 which they were situated helps materially to show the 
 attention paid by the royal government to the details 
 of local activity. The universities gained a large share 
 in many of the afifairs of the boroughs not through 
 grants from the dignitaries of the church, for this was 
 clearly impossible, nor through local grants, but only 
 through the favor of the kings. That the growth of 
 such powers extends throughout the whole of the thir- 
 teenth and fourteenth centuries makes it clear, more- 
 over, that this policy was peculiar to no one king or 
 time. It is sometimes hard to realize that at this early 
 period, before the era of paternalism, the royal admin- 
 istration entered so much into the life of the boroughs, 
 especially after they had been given a large measure of 
 local autonomy. On that account such a study as this 
 may help, though slightly, owing to the peculiar condi- 
 tions involved, to throw some light upon the royal inter- 
 ference elsewhere. In order that the resistance of the 
 boroughs to the encroachments of the universities may 
 be more fully appreciated, a brief outline o ftheir thar- 
 tered rights will first be given, before proceeding to the 
 actual contact of the two corporations. No attempt will 
 be made, indeed, to cover any but these chartered privi- 
 leges, the growth of local customs lying too far afield. 
 
 At the opening of the thirteenth century O.xford and 
 Cambridge were fairly important boroughs with the 
 beginnings of chartered rights. The Oxford burgesses 
 had already gained the right to have their borough at 
 fee-farm.' During the reign of Henrv II the acquired 
 the right to their gild merchant, the customary free- 
 
 . 'Ogle, Royal Irllcrs, 5 (temp. Henry I.). 
 
39 
 
 dom from tolls and the right to be impleaded within the 
 borough for any claim made upon them individually, in 
 such suits following the laws and customs of London.'^ 
 Cambridge had, in the reign of Henry II, received its 
 borough at farm, but not at fee-farm.^ The latter right 
 it did not gain until the reign of John.* 
 
 After the beginning of the century Cambridge quickly 
 gained similar privileges to those which Oxford already 
 enjoyed. John bestowed upon it a charter in 1201, in 
 which he gave it the right to have a gild merchant, ac- 
 quitted the burgesses of the usual long list of tolls 
 and granted "that right should be done to them 
 touching their lands and tenures within the borough ac- 
 cording to the custom of the borough, and of all their 
 debts which shall have been contracted at Cambridge 
 and of the pledges made there, pleas shall be held at 
 Cambridge."'' At this time it also appears that the 
 mayor and bailiffs held court five times a year concern- 
 ing suits of land and once a week for personal actions." 
 
 Both the boroughs received several accessions of priv- 
 ileges, almost at the same time, about the middle of this 
 century. Cambridge in 1256" and Oxford in 1257' 
 gained from Henry III the right to the much sought 
 for return of writs exempting them from the interfer- 
 ence of the sheriff in their local affairs. The former 
 was also given the cognizance of the action now called 
 replevin, and in addition was allowed to elect its own 
 coroner "for making the attachments of pleas of our 
 crown arising within the town of Cambridge."" It is a 
 puzzling fact that, although no royal grant of such a 
 privilege to (Oxford can I>e found, during the later thir- 
 
 " Ogle, op. cit., 2 sq. ; Boase. Oxford, 33-34. 
 ^ M.iitland and Batcson, Cambr. borough charters, introd. XIII 
 and 3. 
 
 ' Ibid., 7 (1207). 
 
 'Ibid., s. ■ 
 
 ' Ibid., introd., XVI. 
 
 ' Ibid., op. cit., 15. 
 
 " Ogle, op. cit., 8. 
 
 ' Maitland and Bateson, op. cit.. 16. 
 
40 
 
 teenth and early fourteenth centuries there are coroners 
 in that borough whose titles and actions stamp them as 
 almost surely borough coroners.^" And indeed the right of 
 electing a borough coroner was not infrequently grant- 
 ed to the boroughs, as the practice of other places easily 
 shows." When this fact is taken into consideration and 
 when the large amount of judicial privileges enjoyed by 
 the borough of Oxford is noticed, these lend an air of 
 extreme probability to the assertion that the coroners 
 w efind in Oxford at the time were borough coroners. 
 In the charter above mentioned Oxford also received 
 the right of not being impleaded without the borough 
 for any pleas concerning the town or for any crime com- 
 mitted within the town, unless these touched the king. 
 It was further granted that, during the absence of the 
 king, their mayor might present himself for confirma- 
 tion to the barons of the exchequer, as did the mayor 
 of London." There are numerous examples recorded 
 of the mayor having taken this oath in London during 
 the period under discussion." 
 
 An additional privilege was given to Oxford in a 
 supplementary charter dated March 26, 1257," which 
 had already been bestowed upon Cambridge in 1256.'^ 
 The burgesses or their goods, wherever found in the 
 kingdom, should not hereafter be seized for debts for 
 which they were not the sureties or principal debtors. 
 
 '"Gross, Coroners' rolls, introd. XX. Dr. Gross, reasoning 
 from tlieir (itles. thinks that they are borough coroners; see also 
 Rogers, Oxford City Documents, 147 sq. Their activities as 
 shown in the coroners' rolls tend to confirm this idea, cf. Coro- 
 ners' rolls (MSS. P. R. O.) numbers 128, 129, 135, all for "villa 
 O-xon." 
 
 " Gross, loc. cit. ; Records of the borough of Nottingham, I., 
 24. (1230); J. S. Davies, History of Southampton, 153 (1256); 
 Seyer, Charters of Bristol, 21 (1256); Rot. cart. (R. C.) 65 (l 
 John) for Ipswich, etc. 
 
 '"For the oath of the mayor see Riley, Liber albus (R. S.), 
 I.,_3o8. 
 
 " Madox, History of the exchequer, 50-51 (21 Ed. I); Ogle 
 op. cit., 27, 69, 72, 74, 92, 93, 95, 103 
 
 'I Ogle, op. cit., 10 sq. 
 
 " Maitland and Bateson, op. cit., 15. 
 
41 
 
 The relief here afforded was from the practice of the 
 boroughs of the time, they arresting a townsman for the 
 debts of his fellow townsmen. The system was finally 
 abolished by the first statute of Westminster (ch. 23). 
 In the same Oxford charter it was granted that the bur- 
 gesses should not forfeit their goods found in the pos- 
 session of servants who had committed felonies. 
 
 The succeeding kings continued this policy of increas- 
 ing the local authority of the boroughs. Edward I con- 
 firmed the charters of both Oxford and Cambridge, but 
 gave to them no new privileges." The latter, however, 
 during the reign of Edward IT,'" and the former during 
 the reign of Edward III.'* received charters more clear- 
 ly defining their judicial authority. Quoting from the 
 Cambridge charter ; "concerning trespasses or contracts 
 made in the same borough and suburb, they may not sue 
 or be sued outside that borough unless the matter con- 
 cerns us, or our heirs, and that touching those trespasses 
 and contracts or other internal affairs, they shall not be 
 convicted by strangers but only by their own fellow 
 citizens, unless the matter concerns us, or our heirs, or 
 the commonality of the aforesaid borough."'" The bur- 
 gesses of Cambridge were also freed from various tolls 
 throughout the kingdom, such as pavage and murage, 
 as were also the burgesses of Oxford in their charter. 
 The former were also given tlie right to bequeath their 
 lands and tenements within their borough to wliom they 
 wished, as if the same were chattels, provided that such 
 lands were not alienated in mortmain. A saving clause 
 was added to both charters that these privileges were 
 not to be to the injury of the university. 
 
 The great riots of 1355 in Oxford and of 1381 in Cam- 
 bridge caused those boroughs to lose numerous and 
 valued privileges, which were handed over to the uni- 
 
 " Ogle, op.cit., 16 (1301) ; Maitland ana Bateson, op. cit., 18- 
 20 (1289). 
 
 ■'Maitland and Bateson, op. cit., 21 sq. (1313). 
 
 "Ogle, op. cit., 35 sq. ( 13-27 )• 
 
 '" Translation in Maitland, etc., 22. 
 
43 
 
 versities. The principal loss in both cases was of cer- 
 tain controlling rights over the assizes and other func- 
 tions of their markets. On account of this deprivation 
 the boroughs suffered a severe diminution of their 
 revenues, for the fines and forfeits arising from the above 
 control were now paid to the university officials who had 
 taken charge. Their fee-farms thus became a heavier 
 burden, since they were supposed to include such pay- 
 ments, and, in consequence, Cambridge received a new 
 charter giving to the burgesses other sources of re- 
 venue.-" The fines, amerciaments, forfeited issues and 
 other profits arising from the penalties imposed by the 
 royal justices while in session in Cambridge were to be 
 given to the town ; those fines, however, arising from 
 cases in which a scholar's servant was a party being ex- 
 cepted. Some disputes breaking out between the town 
 and university over the latter clause, it was further de- 
 fined in 1394.-' 
 
 Such were, in general, the privileges given to the bor- 
 oughs by the royal charters. As may be seen, they 
 were cut ofif to a large extent from the interference of 
 the royal administrative and judicial officials and hav- 
 ing this local independence they were hostile to the in- 
 creasing powers of the universities, which threatened 
 to limit their own rights. That such a limitation did 
 come about will be shown in this chapter, in which will 
 be treated first of all those forms of the borough ma- 
 chinery of government upon which the presence of the 
 universities had a marked effect. 
 
 One of the great problems in the university towns 
 was the preservation of the peace, the riotous tendencies 
 of the students and the hostility of the townsmen call- 
 ing for special regulations for them. Henry III. during 
 his reign, was making great efforts through his insti- 
 tution of watch and ward to bring about tranquility in 
 the kingdom, by a system of night watching in the 
 
 "° Maitland and Bateson, op. cit., 36-37 (1385). 
 "Ibid., 39 sq. ; Cooper, I., 141. 
 
43 
 
 towns and by a scheme of mutual responsibility among 
 the townsmen.-- These regulations would of course 
 apply to Oxford and Cambridge as they did to the other 
 English towns. In 1248, while this system was as yet 
 not fully developed, there are the beginnings of special 
 royal regulations applying to Oxford, which arc similar, 
 it is true, to those already promulgated for the whole 
 kingdom, but are also suited to the needs of the local 
 conditions.-" If a burgess killed or gravely injured a 
 clerk the whole community was to be amerced and 
 punished ; but if these misdeeds were due to the negli- 
 gence of the bailiffs they alone were to be punished. 
 Whenever the mayor and bailiffs took their oath of 
 fidelity in the common place of the borough, the chan- 
 cellor of the university was to be warned in advance so 
 that he might be present if he so desired, for in their 
 oaths these officials were to swear to preserve the uni- 
 versity liberties and customs. It was further provided 
 that each burgess of Oxford should answer for his whole 
 family, in order that, if a scholar was injured or killed by 
 one of them, the burgesses might produce the malefactors 
 that justice might be done according to the custom of 
 the realm. 
 
 This, though important as showing the king's inter- 
 est in the scholars, was but the beginning of the royal 
 provisions. A little later, in 1255, some actual changes 
 were made in the form of the borough government 
 to insure the peace and tranquility of the university.-* 
 In his previous letter patent of the year 1248 Henry 
 had spoken of two aldermen in the borough ; he now 
 provided that there should be four aldermen, with whom 
 eight discreet burgesses were to be associated, all of 
 whom shotdd swear fidelity to the king and should as- 
 sist the mayor and bailiffs in the preservation of the 
 
 '" Stiibhs, Select charters (Ed. iSgs). ,362, 371. 374. The insti- 
 tution was made permanent by the statute of Winchester, 1285. 
 Stubbs, op. cit., 470. 
 
 ^Rogers, op. cit., 212. 
 
 -' Ibid., 213-215 ; Stubbs, op. cit., 377-378. 
 
44 
 
 king's peace, in the taking of tlie assizes and in the 
 capturing of malefactors, disturbers of the peace, noc- 
 turnal vagabonds and receivers of robbers and trans- 
 gressors. An additional safeguard was made in the 
 provision that in each parish two men should be chosen, 
 from among the parishioners, who should inquire as to 
 the suspicious persons lodging in the parish. They 
 were also to keep watch to see whether an_vone received 
 such persons for three nights in their houses, in which 
 case the latter persons might be made to answer for 
 them if necessary. This is the final form of the town 
 organization for this purpose during our period, al- 
 though there is an agreement made in 1290 between the ■ 
 town and the university that they should have the joint 
 custody of the peace in Oxford.-^ 
 
 The Cambridge regulations of the year 1268 are much 
 the same as those for Oxford of 1255. On the twentv- 
 second of February, 1268. Henry III made the follow- 
 ing changes in the borough organization for the sake of 
 the peace of the university.-" There should be two 
 aldermen in Cambridge, who should have associated 
 with them four of the more discreet burgesses of the 
 town. Their duties were of exactly the same descrip- 
 tion as those of the similar officials in Oxford. The 
 same provisions were also made for the two men in each 
 parish whose duty it was to seek out suspected persons. 
 There was, however, a later arrangement in Cambridge, 
 which followed shortly after this one, to prevent the 
 frequent clashings between the town and the university. 
 Prince Edward in 1270 caused an agreement to be en- 
 tered into by the two organizations for the better keep- 
 ing of the peace between them. -'Five scholars were to 
 be chosen from those coming from the counties of Eng- 
 land, three from the Scotchmen, two Welshmen and 
 
 -'' Mun. acad., I., 46-56. 
 
 ■" Cooper, I., 50-51 ; confirmed 20 Ed. I., 2 Ed. II., i Ed. III. 
 "Fuller, op. cit., I., 45-46; confirmed 20 Ed. I., 2 Ed. II., I 
 Ed. III. 
 
45 
 
 three Irishmen, to whom should be joined ten bur- 
 gesses, three from the suburbs and seven from the town 
 itself. This body was to attend to the preservation of 
 the peace and was especially intended, as its composition 
 indicates, to prevent internal strife. 
 
 The settlements reached during the thirteenth cen- 
 tury, as above noticed, remained through the fourteenth 
 for the most part unchanged. Oxford, however, being 
 a walled town, the watching of its gates during the night 
 was a matter of much importance and here too the uni- 
 versity steps in to interfere with the town functions. 
 During the early part of the fourteenth century it gain- 
 ed control of one of these gates, the Southgate, prepar- 
 ing the way for its future management of the night 
 police.^* It may not be out of place to add here, that 
 when the justices of the peace began to be appointed 
 regularly after 1360 with their extensive powers, the 
 chancellors of both Oxford and Cambridge were reg- 
 ularly placed upon the commissions for those towns. -° 
 A saving clause was always added that these justices 
 were not to interfere with the university liberties. 
 
 Beyond the changes shown above there seem to have 
 been no new officials created in the towns because of 
 the presence of the universities except the taxors, whose 
 functions will be described in a later section. Yet the 
 effects along other lines were numerous and significant. 
 The duties and activities of the town officials were modi- 
 fied and limited on every side by the interference of the 
 central government on behalf of the student bodies. 
 Some indications of this can be seen in the case of the 
 peace regulations. This idea was carried so far that it is 
 somewhat doubtful whether a thirteenth century bur- 
 gess of Oxford would have recognized the government 
 of his borough at the end of the following century. 
 
 '-"Cal. c. r., Ed. II.. ii2i-37, 616-17 (Oct., 1326) ; cf. O. H. S. 
 Coll., III., 102. 
 
 ^Wood, I., 479, 481, 487; Stat. coll. O.r., III., 31, 42, etc.; 
 Docs, rel, univ. and Cambr., I., a, 34, 36, 38, 39, sq. 
 
46 
 
 At the head of the town governments was the mayor, 
 who, before entering upon his office, had to take an oath 
 to the commonahty of the town and had also to make 
 some expression of his fidelity to the crown. The oath 
 of the mayor of Oxford has already been spoken of, as 
 has the fact that when he took his oath to the town the 
 chancellor might be present if he wished. A similar 
 state of affairs existed in Cambridge, it being granted 
 that, when the mayor and bailiffs were to take their 
 oaths in the common hall, the chancellor should be fore- 
 warned so that he might attend.^" The mayor was to 
 swear to respect the liberties and customs of the uni- 
 versity and that he would faithfully observe the assizes 
 of bread, wine and ale. In consequence of their neglect 
 of this duty, as shown in the university petitions to 
 parliament,"^ the grant was made in 1336, that the chan- 
 cellor or his locum tenen's should annually, in the name 
 of the king, receive the oath of the mayor and burgesses 
 to maintain the peace of the university and town.'- 
 
 The question of the health of the students and towns- 
 men involving as it did the care of the streets and pave- 
 ments and some sanitary regulations, caused the king 
 to interfere many times with the town control of these 
 matters ; for Oxford and Cambridge like many other 
 mediaeval towns were far from being clean in any mod- 
 ern sense. 
 
 From an early date the repair and cleansing of the 
 streets and pavements occupies an important place in 
 the affairs of both boroughs. They seem to have been 
 in an almost constant state of disrepair, the universities 
 sending complaint after complaint to parliament of their 
 poor condition."' In answer to these petitions and, per- 
 haps, because of a paternal interest in the health of the 
 students, the king strove to remedy the evil by grants 
 
 '"Cooper, I., 75-76 (1317)- 
 
 ''Rot. pari., I., 381a ( 13^0) ; Cooper, I., 88 (i335)- 
 '= Cooper, I., 88; cf. Ibid.. I., 101-102. 
 
 "Ibid, I., 78, 8s, 88, 101-2; Rot. pari, I., 381a; Wood, I., 361; 
 O. H. S. Coll.. III., 104. 
 
47 
 
 of pavage,^* and by commands that the town officials 
 should cause the pavements before the houses of the 
 townsmen and students to be kept in good condition by 
 distraining the owners for repairs."^ The Oxford chan- 
 cellor was early associated with the mayor and bailifts 
 to see that this duty was performed, and also to compel 
 the obedience of the masters and scholars.^" There was 
 the, same difficulty over the cleansing of the streets, the 
 university finding in their uncleanliness a cause of much 
 sickness and death in the towns. To Oxford, after the 
 riots of 1355, it was granted that its chancellor was 
 to have the sole power of seeing to the cleansing of the 
 streets of the town and suburbs and of punishing those 
 who refused to obey his commands.^' The mayor and 
 bailiffs seem to have been unsuccessful in their attempts 
 to suppress the evil and this was the result. After the 
 statute of Cambridge, 1388, chapter XIII of which was 
 a command that the towns of the kingdom be kept 
 clean, ^* the chancellor of Cambridge was associated 
 with the town officials to attend to this subject." 
 
 In addition to the general question of cleanliness in- 
 volved in the care of the streets, complaints were made 
 at intervals and remedies granted concerning special 
 instances of unsanitary conditions. The great ditch of 
 the town was not scoured thoroughly by the mayor and 
 baililifs, and, in Oxford, they were commanded to do so at 
 once.^" The Cambridge chancellor was ordered to see to 
 the cleaning of certain noxious gutters within the pre- 
 cincts of the university.^' Edward I issued a mandate 
 that the bakers and brewers of Oxford should not use 
 the polluted waters of the Trillmill stream because such 
 
 " Cooper, I., 62, 80. 
 
 "Cat. c. r.. Ed. III.. 1333-37, 554; Cal p. 1:, Ed. III., 
 1330-1334, 208. 
 
 "Cal. p. r., Ed. III.. 1330-34. 208; Ibid., 1334-3S, 2,2; Ibid., 
 1338-40. 121, 334. 
 
 ''Ogle, op. cit., 62 sq. ; cf. Mun. acad.. I., 177 (1356), where 
 the power was extended to the hundred without the north gate. 
 
 '"■Slat, of the realm. II., 59. 
 
 " Cooper, I., 140 (1391). 
 
 "Ibid., I., 85; Ogle, op. cit., 72 (1371)- 
 . "Ibid., I., 141 (1393). 
 
48 
 
 a practice was hurtful to the health of the scholars. *- 
 The university of Oxford also complained that the pre- 
 paring of parchments and skins within the walls of the 
 town caused an awful stench to arise and therefore it 
 prayed that these operations might be henceforth carried 
 on without the town.*^ Although this extreme request 
 was not granted by the king, he did command that the 
 evil should be remedied. Another and great cause of 
 annoyance in Oxford was the fact that the butchers and 
 others killed their cattle within the town, throwing the 
 offal and other refuse into the streets. This was said 
 to have caused a large amount of sickness and death.** 
 It seems from the answer to the royal writ that there 
 was a public place set aside for the use of those killing 
 cattle, in which they could also sell their meats, the rent 
 of which place, one hundred shillings, was used toward 
 the payment of the fee-farm of the town.*^ Neverthe- 
 less the mayor and bailiffs were ordered to make a 
 proclamation against any such slaughtering of animals 
 within the walls, and the chancellor of the university, 
 the mayor of the town, and the warden of Merton col- 
 lege were appointed to act as overseers of the matter with 
 the power to punish offenders." The mayor and bailiffs 
 objecting to this and the sheriff refusing to aid in the 
 carrying out of this command, Edward issued another 
 writ in which he reconstructed the commission.'*'' The 
 chancellor and warden were now chosen to supervise 
 the evecution of the order, the former being empowered 
 to act alone if the latter refused to serve. On the same 
 day the sheriff was commanded to make a proclamation 
 of this regidation within the town of Oxford.'" 
 
 But the royal care of the universities did not end there. 
 
 '=Wood, L, 344-45 (i293)- 
 "O. H. S. Coll., III., 104-105 (1305). 
 "Ibid., 135 (I339)- 
 
 "Wood, I., 439, Cat. p. r., Ed. 111.. 1338-40, 306. 
 ■ "Cal. p. r., Ed. III., 133S-40, 186 (Jan. 20, 1339). 
 "Ibid., 306 (July 30, 1339). 
 "Ibid. 
 
49 
 
 Besides the employment of various means to preserve the 
 health of the students, he used others to preserve the quiet 
 necessary for study, others for the moral welfare of the 
 students, and yet others to prevent any unjust discrimina- 
 tion against them. All these interfered, to a greater or 
 less extent, with the free control of the boroughs by the 
 burgesses themselves. 
 
 The tournaments of the mediaeval period were often, 
 as is well known, the scenes of great disorder. "Many 
 sad casualties were caused by these meetings, though 
 ordered with the best caution. Arms and legs were 
 as often broken as spears. Much lewd people waited on 
 these assemblies, light housewives as well as light horse- 
 men repaired thereto. Yea, such was the clashing of 
 swords, the rattling of arms, the sounding of trumpets, 
 the neighing of horses, the shouting of men all day- 
 time, with the roaring of riotous revellers all the night, 
 that the scholars' studies were disturbed, safety en- 
 dangered, lodging straightened, charges enlarged, all 
 provisions being unconscionably enhanced.'"' These 
 conditions were those that led Henry III, in 1252, to 
 prohibit all tournaments in Cambridge or about it with- 
 out his license, under pain of forfeiture of all the goods 
 of the offender.'"' In 1270 he sent another writ which 
 became the basis of the future strict royal policy.^' 
 The king, at the request of the university, then com- 
 manded that no tournaments, tiltings or other warlike 
 games should be held in Cambridge or within five miles 
 of that place, if the masters and scholars requested that 
 they should not be allowed. Such warlike meetings 
 were also forbidden to be held in or about Oxford, the 
 regulation of 1306 making this order good within twelve 
 miles of the town."- The action against tournaments is, 
 however, but another instance of the localization of what 
 
 '" Mullinger, op. cit.. I., 138. quoting Fuller. 
 ^ B. M. MSS., Faustina, C. III., fol. 142a (36 Henry III.). 
 "Cooper, I., 53; confirmed 1292, 1309, 1327. 
 "Wood, I., 369; Hardy, Syllabus, 138. 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 was a general policy of the crown, as may be seen in 
 the various writs prohibiting such meetings. ^^ 
 
 An indirect cause of many of the smaller disturbances 
 in the university towns,_ as also of the greater riots, was 
 undoubtedly the practice of both the scholars and towns- 
 men of carrying aims. That the authorities of the uni- 
 versity of Oxford saw this the words of the statute of 
 1313 bear ample witness."'' During the thirteenth cen- 
 tury that university prohibited the carrying of weapons 
 by the students, ^^ and had later been promised assistance 
 by the archbishop of Canterbury to enforce this com- 
 mand. '^'^ A compromise position was reached in 1313, 
 the students having offered in their own behalf tlie plea 
 of self defence.'^' By this compromise the carrying of 
 arms was restricted to such times as when the students 
 were entering or leaving the town after or upon enter- 
 ing upon a long journey. With this statute as its back- 
 ing, the university appealed to parliament that the towns- 
 men of Oxford be also forbidden to carry arms, for it 
 said, they kill and wound many unarmed and unoffen- 
 sive scholars. '^^ Edward II gave his answer to this pe- 
 tition in a command that none but the town officials 
 should be allowed to bear arms within the town. The 
 next king, Edward III, passed a still more stringent 
 enactment, forbidding the bringing in arms by the 
 students under any pretext and commanding that they 
 should not even keep armor or weapons in their lodg- 
 ings.''' All persons were, further, forbidden to sell them 
 such articles under pain of imprisonment. He also for- 
 bade the carrying of weapons by all men except those 
 officials of the town and of the ro)'al administration 
 
 " Palgrave, Parliamentary zvrits, II., II., app. 19, No. 18, sq. ; 
 Ibid, II., II., app. 35, No. 26. 
 
 " A/un. acad., I., 91. 
 
 "Ibid., I., 16 (I2S0?). 
 
 "■Ibid., I., 40 (1279). 
 
 "Ibid., I., 91. 
 
 "'Rot. pari. I., 37?b; O. H. S. Coll.. III., 119 (1320). 
 
 "Cal. p. r.. Ed. III., 1334-3S, 67 (13.34); ibid., 83; O. H. S., 
 Coll. I., 14 (1335)- 
 
51 
 
 whose duties demanded their use."" When the privi- 
 leges of the town of Oxford were restored in 1335, after 
 St. Scholastica's day, the cognizance of all unlawful 
 bearers of arms, both lay and clerical, was reserved for 
 the chancellor of the university."' The statutes of Cam- 
 bridge have been lost for this early period and there 
 seem to have been no royal writs upon this subject di- 
 rected to that place; yet even there, in 1351, the univer- 
 sity petitioned parliament for the power to seize all 
 weapons that were being carried and to bind over of- 
 fenders for their good behavior."" 
 
 It must not be deduced from these strict orders that 
 the scholars and laymen did not carry arms or at least 
 keep them within reach. During the riot on and after 
 St. Scholastica's day, which followed the period of the 
 statutes, the students, as well as the townsmen, were 
 fully equipped for the fray."^ The coroners' rolls for 
 Oxford also bear witness to the seemingly general pos- 
 session of arms by the students in open violation of the 
 university commands."'' It is interesting to note the 
 variety of weapons in use, mention being made of bows, 
 arrows, swords, knives, hatchets, shields and even of that 
 curious weapon called a pole-axe. The weapons used 
 were therefore not primitive stones or clubs, but almost 
 the whole range of effective mediaeval offensive weap- 
 ons. 
 
 The care of the morals of the students was left to the 
 chancellor of the university ; yet to remove temptation 
 from their path it was ordered that in Cambridge a pro- 
 clamation should be made four times a year to the ef- 
 fect that no harlot should remain within the town or its 
 suburbs. °° If such women did not depart within fifteen 
 days after the making of the proclamation, they were to 
 
 '"Cal. p. r., Ed. III., 1334-3S. 83 (1334). 
 "Ogle, op. cit., 62 sq. (1355). 
 ■" Cooper, I., 102. 
 
 "^ Lyte, Hist. univ. O.vford. 162 sq. 
 "Rogers, op. cit., 150. 11^5, 163. 165, 168, 171,. 
 "Cal. /.. r.. Ed. II., 1313-17. 665 (1327) ; Ibid., Ed. III., 1327-w, 
 60, 183 (12,27) ■ 
 
53 
 
 be imprisoned at the will of the chancellor. They were 
 also banished from Oxford in 1234, but the king allowed 
 those arrested to be released soon afterward and made 
 no systematic regulations for their control."'' By the be- 
 ginning of the fourteenth century, however, the chan- 
 cellor of Oxford, seems to have gained the power to 
 imprison and punish all such corruptors of the morals 
 of the students. "'' 
 
 Yet another instance of the royal interference with 
 the town atifairs for the benefit of the students still re- 
 mains to be treated before proceeding to the great ex- 
 ample of such action, the organization of the markets. 
 In order to prevent the unjust treatment of the scholars 
 with respect to the rent of their rooms and houses, the 
 crown approved the method, which was in use in all of 
 the mediaeval universities,"' of having the rent of these 
 halls rated by a joint board of townsmen and masters. 
 The first recorded mention of a distinction between lay 
 and scholars' houses is found in 1244, when the papal 
 legate, Nicolas, bishop of Tusculum, provided that the 
 townsmen should remit one-half of the rent of the halls 
 occupied by scholars for the ensuing ten years, as a 
 penalty for their misdeeds.''" Henry III followed this, 
 in 1 23 1, with a command to the townsmen not to over- 
 rate their houses so as to cause scholars to remain away 
 from (3xford."' Later, in 1256, the same king by his 
 confirmation extended the practice noted, granting that 
 such houses should be rated every five years by a 
 joint board of taxors chosen by the town and univer- 
 sity." This board was said in 1290 to be composed of 
 two clerics and two laymen.''-' A custom grew out of 
 
 "Wood, I., 217; Lyte, op. cit., 29; cf. Mun. acad., I., 17. 
 
 "O. H. S., Coll., III., 101-102 (1305). 
 
 ^ Rashdall, op. cit., II., II., 399-400. 
 
 ■" Mun. acad.. I., i. 
 
 '"Wood. 1., 205-206; cf. Mun. acad., I., 13. (1250?), which 
 provides a penalty for overrating. 
 
 "Wood, I., 253; Annalcs monast., (Osney), IV., Ill, sub anno 
 1256; cf. Wood, I., 27s (1269). 
 
 '"Mun. acad., I., 55-56. 
 
53 
 
 these regulations that when once a house was let to 
 scholars it should always be reserved for them, unless 
 the owner wished to occupy it, Edward III sanction- 
 ing this practice in 1303.'-' The royal confirmation of 
 this universtity usage was granted to Cambridge in 123 1 
 because of the extortions of the townsmen.'^ The 
 board was to be composed of two masters and two legal 
 men of the town, who were to decide the rents of the 
 scholars' houses every five years. The grant states that 
 this was already according to the custom of the univer- 
 sity. Cambridge also developed some customs looking 
 tow^ard a more complete control over these houses. 
 After the rating had been made, if a scholar went to a 
 householder and offered to pay the rent or to give 
 security for its payment, the said householder was 
 obliged to permit him to have the house or room, and if 
 he did not do so the chancellor could admit the scholar 
 notwithstanding his resistance.'"' When, in IJ92. the 
 prior of Bernewell refused to rent one of his houses on 
 these terms, the chancellor put the scholars in pos.ses- 
 sion of it, tiuis proving the effectiveness of this power."" 
 
 The last and greatest example of the royal interference 
 with the borough management of its own afifairs has 
 now been reached. In the following account of the 
 gradual acquisition by the universities of the control of 
 the various assizes pertaining to the markets of Oxford 
 and Cambridge, no attempt will be made to construct 
 a complete history of the markets as borough organiza- 
 tions. From the point of view of this study it will only 
 be necessary to notice the cases where the universities 
 and the boroughs came in contact, and especially those 
 requiring royal interposition. For the sake of clear- 
 ness the two towns will be considered separately, the 
 wide divergence which exists in the times when the uni- 
 
 "Wood, I., 367; Rashdall, op. cit., II., II., 400. 
 "Royal letters Henry III., Shirley I., 398-99; confirmed 20 
 Ed. I. ,"2 Ed. II., I Ed. III. 
 
 '^ Mullinger, op. cit., I., 218-221. 
 "Cooper, I., 65. 
 
54 
 
 versifies acquire the same privileges making any otlier 
 method out of the question. 
 
 The preliminary stage of the development which 
 gradually leads up to the great powers of the university 
 of Oxford over various affairs connected with the 
 market, was not one in which the latter was even an as- 
 sisting factor. The townsmen, it seems, took advan- 
 tage of the position of the students and overcharged 
 them for their victuals. This being a violation of the 
 mercantile spirit of the times, as shown in the royal reg- 
 ulations of prices, writs were sent to Oxford com- 
 manding the townsmen to observe the assizes and to 
 charge only reasonable prices for their produce. Among 
 the first restrictions upon the townsmen having the 
 students in view, is the provision of the bishop of Tus- 
 culum, the papal legate before mentioned, in 1214, that 
 the Oxford men should sell their victuals to the clerks 
 at a reasonable price." The king was, however, as was 
 natural, the prime mover in this regulation from with- 
 out. There were a number of royal commands sent to 
 Oxford that the assizes should be observed,'* that wine 
 should be sold at a reasonable rate,'" and some others of 
 a like nature. These mandates were in the nature of an 
 attempt to assure a fair treatment of the university with- 
 out giving- it any real power and are continued even 
 when this body had acquired a fair amount of super- 
 vision over the market. Until, however, the latter gain- 
 ed a large amount of authority these were the only 
 available means of preventing extortions. The failure 
 of this system led in time to one of joint control and, 
 when the abuses still continued, to the full powers of the 
 university. 
 
 The assizes continuing to be badly administered by the 
 officials of Oxford, the chancellor was given the right, 
 
 "" Mnn. acad.. I., 2; O. H. S.. Coll.. II.. 46, Osle, The Oxford 
 market. 
 
 "Shirley, op. cit., I.,482-483; Wood, I., 301, 403; Boase, Ox- 
 ford. 43. 
 
 " Ibid., I., 4R3. 
 
55 
 
 in 1248, to be notified by the townsmen in order that he 
 might be present at the taking of the assizes of bread 
 and ale to insure their better observance.'" That this 
 should be more effective it was also provided that these 
 assizes were to be of no avail if he had not been given 
 this notification; but if he did not appear either in person 
 or through deputies, after being warned, the trial was 
 to proceed. Again, in 1255, among the several regula- 
 tions passed by the king for the control of the bakers, 
 the sale of wine and the supervision of the assizes, 
 it was stated that the assize of bread and ale should be 
 of no account unless the chancellor, or his deputies, 
 were present, or had been sunmioned.'*' Thus far, there- 
 fore, the chancellor had only the right of being present 
 as an onlooker, though his presence might have a salu- 
 tary effect upon the actions of the town officials. Thi^ 
 was corrected in 1268 when it was provided that, if 
 the chancellor and proctors were not present in person 
 or through deputies, the assize should not proceed. '- 
 
 The university had been given, through these grants, 
 a fair chance to interfere to some extent, by means of 
 its officials, in the supervision of the Oxford market. 
 The chancellor did not allow this chance of increasing 
 his powers slip by without some result. A dispute 
 arose, about 1280, over the disposal of the forfeits from 
 the assizes, Edward I settling the matter later with the 
 command that they be given to the hospital of St. John 
 without the east gate of Oxford.'*' Some other points 
 which were contested reached the parliament of I2C)0 
 and were there settled.*** The town complained that the 
 chancellor appropriated to himself the forfeited victuals 
 and fines from regrators and forestallers to the injury 
 of its fee-farm. The royal answer to this complaint 
 made no mention of the fines, but stated that over re- 
 
 '" Rogers, op. cit., 2i,v. Lyte. op. cit., 44. 
 " Ibid., 2I.V2IS; O. H. S., Coll.. II., 47. 
 ''■Mun. acad.. 11., 779; O. H. S., Coll.. 47- 
 "Rogers, op. cit., 215-216 (12S4) ; O. H. S., Coll.. II., 47- 
 ■ "Mh;i. am/., I., 46-';6; O. H. S., Co//., II., 48. 
 
56 
 
 grators and forestallers the mayor and chancellor were 
 to have jurisdiction within the town and the sheriff with- 
 out its limits. All forfeited goods were to be given to 
 the Hospital of St. John above mentioned with the con- 
 sent of the chancellor and mayor within and the chan- 
 cellor and sheriff without Oxford."^ This is yet another 
 sign of the growing interest of the university in borough 
 affairs. The petitions to the parliaments of 1304 and 
 1305 are particularly interesting illustrations of the dif- 
 ficulties of the townsmen in conducting their affairs in 
 the face of the opposition of the university. The latter 
 made the complaint that the composition between it and 
 the town concerning the thirty-two regrators who were 
 to be allowed in Oxford,*" had not been observed, as the 
 townsmen had allowed the number to be increased.*^ 
 The response to the petition was that the composition 
 should be heeded. Another complaint was made by 
 the university that the millers charged too high a toll 
 for grinding wheat.'*'* The assizes also were neglected 
 because of the vacancy of the sheriff's office.'^ Petition 
 was also made that the bailiffs, who had in their charge 
 the custody of the assize of bread and ale, did not, on 
 the denunciation of the chancellor, punish delinquent 
 bakers and brewers. And, finally it was asked that 
 strangers coming to Oxford with fish and other victuals 
 might sell the same without impediment. In the an- 
 swering royal writ, it was granted that they might do so 
 provided that they did not sell at retail and on condition 
 that they paid such fees as were customary."" 
 
 While considering the above complaints the chron- 
 
 *'' A/u)i. acad.. I., 49; Ibid., I.. 51-52, forfeited unfit victuals 
 were to be given to the Hospital of St. John. 
 
 "This seems to refer to the agreement of 1278, although the 
 number is there thirty-one and there is some dispute as to the 
 reading of the manuscript. Mun. acad., I., 38; Wood, I., 309; 
 Lyte, op. cit., 121 ; O. H. S., Coll., III., 103. 
 
 *^Rot. pari., I.. 163a (1304). 
 
 "O. H. S. Coll., III., 104. 
 
 " Ibid., III., 104. 
 
 "•O. H. S., Coll., III., 103; Ogle, op. cit., 17: cf. O. H. S., Coll., 
 III.. 112, 117-118, 118-119, 119-120; Rot. part.. I., 327b, 373. 
 
57 
 
 ological development of the market has been overlook- 
 ed, so it will be necessary to retrace our steps. Be- 
 cause of the failure of the town to pay its customary 
 fee-farm, Edward I, in 1295, seized into his own hands 
 the assize of bread and ale, and, though leaving the actual 
 operation of the assize in the hands of the usual officials, 
 he commanded that all fines arising from this control 
 should be paid to the constable of Oxford castle."^ The 
 king thus caused a serious loss of revenue to the town, 
 and, moreover, the burgesses had still to pay one hun- 
 dred shillings in their fee-farm for the fines which had 
 been taken from them. Yet notliing was done to alle- 
 viate their condition during this reign. Edward II in 
 consequence, perhaps, of a petition of the townsmen 
 complaining of the injury to their fee-farm by this seiz- 
 ure,"^ granted that the chancellor of the university and 
 the mayor of the town should have the custody of this 
 assize upon an annual payment of one hundred shillings, 
 the customary rental.^^ Even this did not relieve the 
 Inirgesses, who had to pay the same sum in their fee- 
 farm, while also paying this new amount, and it was not 
 until the reign of Edward III that the payment of the one 
 hundred shillings in their fee-farm was remitted." 
 
 Two interesting occurrences happening in the reign of 
 Edward II illustrate the extent of the university in- 
 fluence at that time. During the year it,u) the mayor 
 and bailififs were ordered to assign certain places in the 
 market place for the accommodation of strangers, to 
 
 " O. H. S.. Coll., III., 126. There seems to be some confusion 
 over the significance of this seizure. Ogle. O. li. S., Coll., II., 
 13, following Wood, I., 400. states that the king seized the clerk- 
 ship of the inarket, yet this clerkship as defined by him, op. cit., 
 44, seems to have special reference to the assize of weights and 
 measures. And, moreover, none of the later actions of the kings 
 bear out this idea. 
 
 "=0. H. S., Coll.. III.. (1323)- 
 
 "''Wood, I., 406; Cal. c. r.. Ed. 11.. IJ-'S'-'/- ^34 (13^4)- 
 
 ""Cal. />. r.. Ed. III.. 1338-40. 178, C1139). 
 
5S 
 
 distinguish them from the townsmen."'^ But they were 
 not allowed to do this freely, for the chancellor's con- 
 sent was made necessary to their action and in default 
 of them he was empowered to proceed alone in the as- 
 signment. The reason for this arrangement of the 
 sellers was to prevent the forestalling of such strangers 
 by the townsmen, as the university complained had been 
 done."" In 1325 again the mayor, having removed the 
 pillory from its accustomed place, without the knowl- 
 edge of the chancellor, was at once excommunicated 
 by the latter for having violated the privileges of the 
 university. In spite of his protests he had to acknowl- 
 edge an infringement of the university rights and a re- 
 moval was then agreed to."' Where the university 
 gained any rights over the borough pillory is not very 
 clear, but it may have been due to the fact that it was 
 commonly used as a means of punishment for infractions 
 of the assizes,^* in which the university had a partial in- 
 terest. 
 
 At the opening of Edward Ill's reign the assize of 
 bread and ale was already under the joint control of the 
 mayor and chancellor. The same position with regard 
 to the assize of weights and measures was granted to 
 the chancellor and mayor in the first year of the same 
 king."" On March 6, 1328, he reaffirmed his father's 
 settlement of the question of the control of the assize of 
 bread and ale, with the addition that in the absence of 
 the mayor or his deputy the chancellor might hold the 
 assize alone. '°'' That yearly rental of one hundred shill- 
 ings was continued. On the same day the assize of 
 weights and measures was granted on the same condi- 
 
 "Cal. c. ,:. Ed. 11., isiS-.^s, 75; O. H. S., Coll.. II., 13; Wood, 
 I., 400, 401. 
 
 "Cal. c. r, loc. cit. ; O. H. S., Coll., III., 117-118, 1 19-120; 
 Rot. pari, I., 373. 
 
 " Lyte, op. cit., 125-126. 
 
 "E. g., Stat, realm, I., 202; Cal. c. r., Ed. 111., 135S40. 178, etc. 
 etc. 
 
 "Cal. /.. r.. Ed. 111., 1327-30. 21. 
 
 ™lbid., 248-249. 
 
59 
 
 tions, the rental excepted."' Later in the year, October 
 25th, Edward made the matter still more definite.'"^ 
 The chancellor, with the aldermen, was to have the 
 custody of the measures of the assize, the pottle, gallon 
 and quart, which custody the chancellor and mayor had 
 in the past. All the tines, however, were to go to the 
 mayor and bailiiTs toward the fee-farm of the town. The 
 assize of bread and ale and "of the weights thereto be- 
 longing" was placed under the control of the chancellor 
 and mayor at a yearly rental of one hundred shillings. 
 In both cases the town officials were subject to the call 
 of the chancellor at any time in order that the assizes 
 might be taken. If the mayor declined to be present 
 at the assize of bread and ale the chancellor might take 
 it alone and if the alderman proceeded in his absence, 
 without due notice, their trial of the weights and meas- 
 ures would have to be repeated if the chancellor de- 
 manded it. In 1338 this settlement seems to have been 
 agreed to in part at least at a meeting of the scholars 
 and burgesses."" 
 
 From this time until the final stage of the tlevelop- 
 ment was reached there was practically no change in 
 the general conditions, although some minor points 
 were adjusted. The price of wine caused some little 
 difficulty in 133 1 and it was ordered that it should 
 not exceed that of London by more than one half-penny 
 on each gallon, the customary carriage rate."* Some 
 additional clauses were added to the previous charter 
 concerning the assizes in 1339, providing for the punish- 
 ment of offenders."" The threat was made that, if the 
 town officials were remiss in their assistance of the 
 chancellor in the custody of the assizes, they should lose 
 
 '"Cal. p. r.. Ed. III.. 1327-30. 251. 
 ""=Ibid., 329; cf., Ibid., Ed. 111., 1334-3S. 232 (1336). 
 '"'Wood, I., 43';. 
 
 "^Cal. p. r.. Ed. III.. 1330-34, 28, 186, 390; cf. Stat, realm, U 
 264. 
 '"Cat. p. r., Ed. III.. 1338-40, 178, (i339)- 
 
60 
 
 their liberties.'"" And, finally, in 1348, the town and 
 university again came to an agreement, this time as to 
 the joint control of the assize of weights and measures,"^ 
 for it seems that the town had not fully accepted the 
 former royal commands. According to this compromise 
 if the mayor did not appear at the trial, the chancellor 
 was to collect and hold the suspicious weights and 
 measures until he came, and the mayor was to do like- 
 wise in the absence of the chancellor. When both par- 
 ties were present these illegal measures could be de- 
 stroyed. This agreement, though not in the terms of 
 his own commands, was ratified by Edward III dur- 
 ing the following year;'"* but it was destined to give 
 way in a short time before the great settlement of 1355. 
 The town and gown fight on St. Scholastica's day, 
 February 10, 1355, cannot be described here, for it is 
 only with its eiifects that we are concerned. ''"' It lasted 
 several days, during its course some men were killed on 
 both sides, and as a result of it the town was laid under 
 an interdict by the bishop of Lincoln and the sheriff 
 was removed from his office by a commission sent out 
 by the king."" The town and the university had to 
 give up their charters to Edward III and submit the 
 matter to his decision.'" When the university privi- 
 leges were restored in the charter of June .27, 1255, it 
 was given several new privileges."- In the town of Ox- 
 ford and its suburbs the chancellor was to have forever 
 the full and complete custody of the assizes of bread, 
 wine and ale and the correction and punishment of all 
 offenders against the same, with all fines, amerciaments 
 and profits arising therefrom, rendering for this custody 
 
 "*Wood, I., 442 (1346). 
 
 ■'"MuH. ucad.. I„ 159-167; O. H. S., Coll., II.. 5^- 
 
 '" O. H. S., Coll., II., 52. 
 
 '"'Lyte, op. cit., 162-164; Boase, Oxford, 85 sq. ; documents, 
 Rogers, op. cit., 245 sq. 
 
 ""B. M. MSS. Add., 4507, fol. 23,. 
 
 '" Hardy, Syllabus, 381 ; Rogers, op. cit., 249-250. 
 
 "'O. H. S., Coll., II., 52-53; Ogle, op. cit., 62 sq. ; confirmed 
 Cal. p. r., Rich. II. , 13S1-S5, 514 (1384). 
 
61 
 
 the sum of one hundred sliillings to the roya! exchequer. 
 This amount was, of course, merelj' the old payment 
 made during the preceding period. The chancellor 
 was also to have the full custody of the assize, assay and 
 supervision of weights and measures within the same 
 limits, with the power of destroying all false measures 
 and of punishing delinquents. The fines arising from 
 this authority were, however, to go to the mayor and 
 bailiffs of Oxford in aid of their fee-farm. He was 
 further granted complete jurisdiction over all fore- 
 stallers, regrators and sellers of putrid flesh or fish in 
 Oxford and its suburbs, the forfeited victuals to go to the 
 hospital of St. John without the east gate, as in the 
 past. In order to carry these commands more fully 
 into effect the mayor and bailiffs were charged to hand 
 over to the chancellor the standard weights and meas- 
 ures and the royal seal, which they had in their pos- 
 session.^'^ 
 
 The university, through its chancellor, had finally 
 reached the goal towards which it had been striving for 
 so long a period. Since it now had the upper hand the 
 disputes with the town henceforward took on a new 
 aspect, matters of definition and limitation of the chan- 
 cellor's power replacing the older efforts of the univer- 
 sity to lessen the power of the town government. 
 
 Almost immediately upon the reception of his new 
 privileges by the chancellor, he became involved in a 
 controversy over the custody of the assizes with Richard 
 d'Amory, the holder in fee-farm from the crown of the 
 hundred without the north gate of Oxford. The dis- 
 pute was settled in favor of the chancellor by the king, 
 the powers which he possessed over the various assizes 
 and over forestallers and regrators and the like in O.x- 
 ford, being extended to this hundred, with the proviso 
 that nothing was to come to him from the sale or 
 measurement of woolen cloth."* In his next attempt 
 
 "' Ogle, op. cit., 57. 
 
 "'Mtin. acad., I., 176-178; O. H. S., Coll., II., 53. 
 
62 
 
 to extend his jurisdiction along these lines the chancel- 
 lor was not so successful. He claimed the right of hold- 
 ing the assizes in the fair of the priory of St. Frides- 
 wides, but when the latter complained to Richard II this 
 claim was disallowed."^ 
 
 Meanwhile there had been some slight dissensions 
 within the university over the disposal of the fines and 
 forfeits from the assizes. Edward III ordered that, after 
 the one hundred shillings rental had been deducted from 
 the total amount of the fines, the remainder should be 
 divided into two equal parts, one to go to the university, 
 the other to the chancellor."* In 1401, however, this 
 rent was remitted by Henry IV on condition that the 
 university pay one penny each year to the exchequer at 
 the feast of St. Michael.'" 
 
 The growth of the powers of the university of Cam- 
 bridge over the market was somewhat slower than at 
 Oxford, although in its completed form the two were 
 almost the same. One reason for this seems to be that 
 there was not the same bitter hostility between the town 
 and gown as it existed in the other borough. 
 
 The university soon gained a share in the supervision 
 of the assizes, as did Oxford. In 1268, among the royal 
 regulations for the better management of the market, 
 it was granted that the chancellor might be present, 
 if he wished, at the taking of the assize of bread and 
 ale. If he should not be present because he was not 
 notified, the assize was to be of no force."* Over regra- 
 tors and forestallers the chancellor soon attained a par- 
 tial jurisdiction. When Henry enacted, in 1268, that 
 no regrator should buy victuals in the town to sell again 
 at retail before the third hour, he did not mention the 
 
 "'Rot. pad.. III., 176; Cal. p. r., Rich. II.. 1381-83, 202 (1382) ; 
 O. H. S., Coll., II., 53-54- 
 
 "°Mun. acad., I.. 1S7-188 (13^6) ; O. H. S., Coll., II., 53. 
 
 "'O. H. S., Coll., II., 54; Edward IV. confirmed this grant 
 after the acts of resumption; Griffith, Enactments in pari, 8-9 
 (12 and 13 Edward IV.). 
 
 '"Cooper, I., 50-51; Dyer, Privileges univ. Cambr., I., 64. 
 
63 
 
 university."" Edward I, however, by his letter patent, 
 granted that tlie chanceHur and the mayor and bailiffs 
 were to have cognizance of all such offenders within the 
 town and the chancellor and sheriff of those without 
 Cambridge, with respect to the infringement of the law 
 and the disposal of the forfeits.'-" All the Torfeited 
 victuals were to be given to the hospital of St. John, 
 Cambridge. 
 
 The early part of the fourteenth century brought no 
 great change in the royal policy. Edward II made 
 clearer the position of the chancellor by regulating the 
 maiuier of his summons to the taking of the assize of 
 bread and ale.'-' When the trial was to be made by the 
 town officials, the chancellor or his locum tenens was to 
 be secretly forewarned on the preceding day, so that he 
 might be present if he so desired. Those who were 
 deputed for this purpose by him were to swear to him 
 not to reveal this warning before the assize should be 
 taken. Again, in 1327, Edward III made some further 
 rules as to the taking of this assize of bread and ale, 
 because of the negligence and excesses of the mayor 
 and bailiffs.'-- It had been charged that these had not 
 been inflicting the punishments laid down in the charter 
 of Henry III, for they had often fined a transgressor of 
 the assizes twice and even thrice for his offence. There- 
 fore the king commanded that the chancellor should be 
 present at all the trials of bread and ale, so that such 
 ofifenders might be punished according to the forms set 
 forth in the above charter. It was, furthermore, pro- 
 vided that the names of the transgressors should be 
 handed over to the chancellor or to his deputy, that 
 he might sec that they were duly punished. After 
 
 '"B. M. MSS. Fauslina, C III., fol. 145 sq. where all the docu- 
 ments relating lu regrators and forestallers are collected; Cooper, 
 I.. 50-51- 
 
 '"-'Cal. p. r.. Ed. /., isgs-1301, 18; confirmed 2 Ed. II., i Ed. III. 
 
 "'Cooper. I.. 75-76 (1317)- 
 
 '"Ibid.. I., 82; cf. Ibid., I., 78 (1320). 
 
64 
 
 some other complaints of the neglect of the town of- 
 ficials,"' the chancellor received an important accession 
 of power. Hitherto the mayor and bailiffs had been 
 at liberty to take the assize when they saw fit, provided 
 that they forewarned the chancellor;'-* in 1336, how- 
 ever, it was ordered that they should make the trial as 
 often as they should be summoned to do so by the chan- 
 cellor.'"^ This form the settlement maintained during the 
 reign of Edward III. On the whole the growth of power 
 seems to have been less eventful than that of Oxford, 
 and there seem to have been fewer complaints and less 
 reason for royal action than in the other town. 
 
 Almost immediately upon the accession of Richard 
 II the university entered upon a new era of increased 
 powers over the market. In addition to confirming 
 their old grants he gave to it a large number of 
 new privileges. Answering a petition made to him by 
 the university he granted on November 6, 1378, that 
 until the next parliament in case of the negligence of 
 the mayor and bailiffs, the chancellor "might inquire of 
 all things touching bread, ale, wine, flesh, fish and other 
 victuals unduly sold, and weights and measures and 
 punish transgressors."'-*^ The fines arising from this 
 authority were, however, reserved to the king and 
 others interested.'-' In answer to a petition of the next 
 year requesting an extension of this privilege, he con- 
 tinued it for five years,'-* and in 1380 for seven years.'-' 
 Though this was an increase, it did not give the chancel- 
 lor full authority, for it was only operative in the event 
 of the negligence of the regular officials, it was a cor- 
 rective measure rather than a grant of initiative rights. 
 
 The final overthrow of the power of the town of Cam- 
 
 ■=" Cooper, I., 88 (1335)- 
 
 '='B. M. Mss., 5822, fol. 252. 
 
 '=Mbid. ; Cal. p. r., Ed. III., 1334-3S, 235; Cooper, I., 88. 
 
 '■'Cooper, I., 117. 
 
 '-'B. M. Mss., 5822, fol. 252. 
 
 '•'Ibid., fol. 252; Cooper, I., 118. 
 
 '" Cooper, I., 119. 
 
65 
 
 tridge over the assizes was due to a great riot in that 
 place. The peasants revoh of 1381 took on an especially 
 serious aspect there and, as a result of it, Richard demand- 
 ed the charters of both the university and the borough. ''" 
 All of their privileges having been taken into hands of 
 the crown, the scholars were to live henceforward, until 
 they were given new privileges, under the law of the 
 land and the customs of the borough.'^' A settlement 
 of the trouble was not reached until 1382, when, on Feb- 
 ruary 17, Richard issued a charter to the university, 
 granting to it many privileges formerly belonging to the 
 town, and when, on May i, he restored to the town its 
 charters, less those rights now given to the university. "- 
 The new charter granted to the university dealt prin- 
 cipally with the question of the regulation of the assizes 
 and matters of a similar nature. The chancellor and his 
 successors forever were given the custody of the assize 
 of bread, wine and ale within the town and suburbs of 
 Cambridge with all fines, amerciaments and forfeits 
 therefrom arising. He was also put in possession of 
 the assize and assay of weights and measures within 
 the same district, having the power to burn and destroy 
 all such measures as he should find to be false, and to 
 seal such as were correct. The power to punish all 
 breakers of this assize was also given to him. Fore- 
 stallers, regrators, and sellers of putrid, corrupt or un- 
 fit fish, flesh, or other victuals were placed within his 
 cognizance alone, and he was given the power to punish 
 them and to receive all profits which might arise. For 
 these privileges the chancellor was to render ten pounds 
 each year to the royal treasury. The mayor and bailiflfs 
 were strictly commanded to assist the chancellor in the 
 exercise of these powers if he should deem their aid 
 necessary. '^^ In addition, on March 13, 1382, Richard 
 
 ""For a full account of the trouble see Cooper, I., 120-125. 
 "" Cooper, I., 124-125. 
 
 "^ Maitland and Bateson, op. cit., 28 sq. ; Cooper, I., 125. 
 ""Cooper, I., 124-125. 
 
66 
 
 sent letters patent to his justices, to the sheriff and to 
 the mayor and bailiffs, charging them to observe all the 
 above chartered rights."* 
 
 During the period following this charter the royal 
 regulations did not touch the essential fact of the chan- 
 cellor's power, but dealt with matters of definition, as 
 we have noticed to have been the case in Oxford. It 
 having been reported to the king that false weights and 
 measures had been used at the Steresbrigge fair, the 
 chancellor, in 1382, was ordered to watch over the assize 
 of weights and measures in that place. '^^ Again, in 
 1384, a closer definition was made of several of the chan- 
 cellor's rights. A dispute arose between the latter and 
 the town officials over the sizing and sealing of the 
 bushels and other measures, and over the fees which 
 were paid for this service. The university claimed this 
 right as included in their charter, while the townsmen 
 maintained that, as it was not expressly granted in the 
 charter, it belonged to them.^"" The matter finally came 
 before parliament, the sheriff collecting and holding the 
 fees by the royal command during the interval.'"' In 
 parliament it was decided that the chancellor had the 
 right to size and seal all such measures in the fairs, 
 markets and other places of the town, and that he should 
 have whatever fees were received for this service."' 
 This was declared to be within his rights because of the 
 previous charter of Richard. In the same parliament 
 and with its advice, Richard declared that the chancellor 
 might summon the men of the town to make present- 
 ment upon oath concerning forestallers and regrators 
 and putrid and corrupt fish, flesh and other victuals, and 
 to punish those who refused by amerciaments or in the 
 manner used by the chancellor and scholars of Oxford."" 
 
 '" Cal. p. 1:. Rich. II., 13S1-85, 104. 
 
 "° Cooper, I., 126. 
 
 "Mbid., I., 128. 
 
 "' Docs. rel. univ. and coll. Cambr., I., 29. 
 
 '" Rot. pari, in., iSs; Cooper, I., 128-129. 
 
 "• Ibid. 
 
67 
 
 On the tenth of December the king sent his letters 
 patent to the university to this effect,'*" and, on the 
 twelfth, he made his wishes known to the town, forbid- 
 ding the mayor and bailiffs under penalty of £ioo to fine 
 any such transgressors.'*' 
 
 The work of definition was continued during the re- 
 maining years of our period. In 1386, in consequence 
 of a dispute over the meaning of the term victuals, 
 candles and fuel were placed within that category and 
 the cognizance of those selling these articles was given 
 to the chancellor.'*- The university again petitioned 
 the parliament of 1388 for a clearer definition of certain 
 other phrases in their charters.'*-' They asked that the 
 clause relating to regrators might be changed to 
 ''amerced in the presence of the chancellor." Another 
 clause stated that wine should lie sold in Cambridge 
 "indifferently to clerks and to laymen from the cask :" 
 they asked that this might be amended to read that wine 
 should not be sold for more than one half-penny per 
 gallon above the London prices as was done at Oxford. 
 This charge was that made for the carriage of the wine. 
 Though it seems that no answer was given to this peti- 
 tion it illustrates extremely well the difficulties the uni- 
 versity was having, which difficulties greatly resemble 
 those of the town before the university had gained its 
 increased powers. 
 
 , '"Cal. p. r.. Rich. II.. 1381-85. SM- 
 '" Cooper. I., 129. 
 
 ""Ibid., 1.. i;i; Docs. irl. univ. and coll. Cainbr., I., 30. 
 "' Ibid, I., 132. ; 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 The Universities and the Central Government. 
 
 The relation of the universities to the central govern- 
 ment with its various officials, was in general that of 
 the whole clerical body ; yet there are a few cases of 
 special treatment requiring a discussion here. Many of 
 these relations have already been described in the pre- 
 ceding chapters and will, consequently, require only the 
 briefest notice in this place. 
 
 From the judicial authority of the various royal 
 justices the members of the university were exempted, 
 except in the special cases noted of freehold, felony and 
 mayhem, the chancellor trying the other cases by the 
 consent of the king. In the event of a dispute arising 
 concerning a free tenure or if a crime was committed 
 which came under the above heading, the usual laws 
 applying to the clergy would also apply to the privi- 
 leged classes of the universities. When, therefore, a 
 scholar was charged with a murder the coroner went 
 through with the procedure customary in such cases.' 
 the clerk being finally handed over to the bishop of 
 Lincoln or of Ely for trial and punishment. The one 
 exception to this rule during the period of this study 
 was the right given to the seneschal of trying the 
 scholars' servants in Oxford for their felonies.- Before 
 the various royal justices, of assize, of gaol delivery and 
 the like, the scholars were summoned and tried for their 
 felonies, and here also the usual procedure was ob- 
 served, the clerk being delivered to the bishop of the 
 diocese for trial if the crime involved the death penalty. 
 The gaol delivery rolls especially reveal an appalling 
 amount of crime in the university towns, for they are 
 
 ' Cf. Gross, Coroners' rolls. Introduction; Pollock and Mait- 
 land, History English /ait', cd. 1895, I., 245 sq. ; Rogers, op. cit., 
 coroners' rolls. 
 
 ' Supra. 21. 
 
69 
 
 filled with accounts of clerks who are charged with 
 robbery, arson, murder, rape and other misdeeds. The 
 abbreviation lib. epi., delivered to the bishop, is found 
 in the margin of almost every membrane of the Oxford 
 or Cambridge rolls and at times in large numbers.' 
 
 From the ordinary judicial powers of the royal justices 
 except in the cases noted the scholars were exempt, but 
 when, as often happened, the great riots got beyond the 
 control of the town and university authorities, the king 
 always exercised the power to send commissions of oyer 
 and terminer to the towns to settle the disturbance and 
 to try the offenders.* The frequency of these commis- 
 sions bears out the idea, gained elsewhere, of the great 
 disorder in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. 
 
 The sheriff had no authority over the clerks in the 
 universities that he did not exercise over the other 
 clergy. On the other hand he was compelled by royal 
 commands to give to the chancellors the aid of his 
 posse whenever the latter might desire it. The other 
 royal officials, viz: purveyors, escheators, constables 
 and the like, had no unusual relations with the scholars. 
 
 There are, however, certain conditions, witii respect 
 to taxation in which the universities differed from the 
 rest of the clergy, which must be discussed. There may 
 have been special rules elsewhere of a similar nature, 
 but the cases which follow are due to grants made 
 to Oxford and Cambridge, not to general enact- 
 ments for the wiiole clerical body. The land, for ex- 
 ample upon which were built the houses and halls in 
 which the students or university officials dwelt, was in 
 Oxford early recognized as being exempt from tallages, 
 aids and other like dues.^ This exemption rested upon 
 a customary right of clerical immunity in the town, 
 
 ' E. g. Gaol delivery rolls (Mss.), Nos. 113, 7a, 180. 
 
 'Wood, I., 263, 298, 326. 361, 385. 426. 448, 497; Cooper, I., 45, 
 48. 70, 79- 
 
 'Wood, I., 217, 345; MuH. acad., I., 52; Rashdall, op cit., II., 
 n.. 399- 
 
70 
 
 which can be found at least in some other boroughs * 
 In 1313, Edward II directed that the sheriff should inves- 
 tigate the claim of the university of Cambridge that they 
 were exempt from all tallages, no charters being ad- 
 vanced as a basis for the exemption on either side." 
 The king directed that, if they had been free from this 
 tax in the past, they were to be free from it in this case 
 also. 
 
 After the great riot of St. Scholastica's day, 1355, the 
 chancellor of Oxford gained an important extension of 
 his powers. Though he had judicial authority over the 
 scholars' servants, they had up to this time been assessed 
 their share of the taxes by the town officials. To pre- 
 vent ill treatment at their hands, the chancellor was 
 given the power to assess and collect the taxes from these 
 men within the town and suburbs.'* This right was de- 
 fined to extend to the hundred without the north gate in 
 1356." It seems that the chancellor of Cambridge did not 
 gain this privilege, for there are no separate accounts 
 of any sums handed over by him to the tax collectors, as 
 we shall see was the case in Oxford. 
 
 With respect to the lay subsidies levied during the 
 fourteenth century, the universities seem to stand in the 
 same position as their class, the clergy, but their rela- 
 tion to the poll taxes was exceptional. They had a two- 
 fold affinity to these ta.xes, for. while the scholars and 
 masters would be taxed under the clerical grants, their 
 servants would have to pay the lay taxes. In both uni- 
 versities the scholars would have their share of the poll 
 taxes assessed and collected by the ecclesiastical col- 
 lectors. The taxes upon the servants were, however, in 
 
 " Bateson, Rcc. bor. Leicester, I., 128 and introd. LIV. ; York- 
 sliire inquisitions. Brown, II., 63, 115. 
 
 ' Cal. c. r., Ed. 11., i;i;-i8, 26. There seems to be some con- 
 fusion in tlie precedents for this claim; e. r. Cooper. I., 72 (1312), 
 where it seems that they are assessed ; Maitland, Township and 
 borough, 156 (1294), where they are probably exempt; Madox, 
 Firma burgi, 59-60, where they are assessed. 
 
 * Ogle, op. cit., 62 sq. 
 
 ' Mun. acad., I., 117. 
 
71 
 
 Oxford assessed and collected, not by the regular of- 
 ficials appointed for this purpose, but by the chancellor, 
 who then handed over the proceeds to the royal col- 
 lectors.'" An actual record of this being done was made 
 in 1379 when the sub-collectors of the lay poll tax for 
 the town of Oxford, rendered account for sixty shillings 
 and two pence received from the chancellor for the 
 ministers and servants of the scholars." 
 
 The first lay poll tax granted to Edward II in 1377, 
 was a simple levy of one groat, i. c., four pence, upon 
 each lay person in the realm, male and female, over four- 
 teen years of age, beggars being excused.'- The clergy 
 in their grant of the same year made a distinction be- 
 tween those beneficed and those unbeneficed, the former 
 having to pay twelve pence, the latter four pence. '^ The 
 university of Oxford at once complained of this tax upon 
 unbeneficed clerics. As many of the scholars must 
 have been in this class, Edward III, in answer to the 
 petition, granted them a remission of the burden.'"' 
 Owing, perhaps, to the slowness of the clerical collectors 
 it was necessary that Richard II should renew this grant 
 upon his accession,'^ after the university had petitioned 
 him for that privilege. "* A further exoneration appear- 
 ed in 1381,'' and a confirmation of the non-payment 
 of this tax in 1382.'" It appears that the proctors of 
 Oxford collected the twelve pence levied upon the bene- 
 ficed clergy."* Of Cambridge there are no exceptional 
 circumstances or exemptions recorded. 
 
 The poll tax of the second year of Richard II took on 
 
 "Stat. coll. O.xford, III., 78 (1.^77); this lieing an extension 
 of the grant of 1355 dealing with the lay subsidies in general. 
 
 " Z,. R. T. Subsidy enrolled accounts, no. 8 m. 4 d. ; see ap- 
 pendi.K A. 
 
 "Rot. fail. II., 364. 
 
 " Dowell, A history of ta.vation in England, ed. 1888. L, 92. 
 
 "Tliis writ mentioned Cal. f- f-, Rich. II., 13/7-81, 606. 
 
 "■ Wood; I., 49'^. 
 
 "O. M. S., Coll., III., 146-147. 
 
 "Cal. />. )•., Rich. 11. , IS77-SI, 5o6. 
 
 " Wood, I., 485. 
 ■ '» Ibid., I., 495. ; 
 
72 
 
 a new form. It was a graduated tax, each person pay- 
 ing according to his or her property. The lay poll tax 
 levied various amounts upon the inhabitants of the 
 kingdom fiom ten marks upon the duke of Lancaster, 
 to one groat which everyone over sixteen years of age 
 had to pay if they could afford no more. The clergy 
 adopted a similar plan for their tax, the seculars and 
 regulars alike paying according to the value of their 
 benefices, while those who were unbeneficed and monks 
 in the poorer houses were to pay four pence.-' Mendi- 
 cants and those under sixteen years of age were ex- 
 cused from payment. In 1380 the king granted that 
 the unbeneficed scholars of the university of Oxford 
 should be pardoned their share of this tax also."-. It is 
 with regard to the lay poll tax of this year that we have 
 the notice which has been printed in the appendix,-^ The 
 chancellor collected the money from the scholars' serv- 
 ants and delivered it to the royal collectors. The cler- 
 ical poll tax was this year assessed and collected by the 
 chancellor and proctors in obedience to a command of 
 the king. Again Cambridge does not oft'er any unusual 
 features, the rolls of the lay tax bearing no mention of 
 any separate amount received from the chancellor."' 
 
 The last poll tax was granted by the nation during 
 the fourth year of Richard. Both the previous methods 
 having proved to be unsatisfactory, the form of the lay 
 tax was changed. Upon all lay persons, male and fe- 
 male, over fifteen years of age, mendicants excepted, a 
 levy of twelve pence was to be made. The sum total 
 for its population was to be laid upon each town or hun- 
 dred, the individual, however, paying his share of this 
 total according to his property."" The clerical grant was 
 
 -' Rflt. f'arl.. III., 57 sQ. 
 
 -'Wilkins, Concilia. Ill, 141-14J. 
 
 '■"Cal. f. r.. Rich. }[., 1377-S1 426; Stat. coll. Oxford, III., 3$. 
 
 ^ Appendix A. 
 
 ^'Slat. coll. Ox., III., 78. 
 
 ™L. T. R., Subsidy enrolled accounts, no. 8 m 3 d. 
 
 -'Rot. pari. III., 90. 
 
73 
 
 again a graduated poll tax, making the same distinction 
 between beneficed and unbeneficed clergy as the former 
 grants had done.^' From this tax, as before, the un- 
 beneficed scholars of Oxford were excused, on the testi- 
 mony of the bishops that the beneficed members of the 
 university had paid their share of the taxation.'* The 
 account of this poll tax, printed by Mr. Rogers,'^^ is of 
 interest as it shows that many men who served the 
 scholars, but who lived in the suburbs, were assessed 
 by the royal officials and not by the chancellor. The 
 latter's list has been lost or mislaid, so that any estimates 
 of the population of Oxford at this time are apt to be 
 misleading. 
 
 During the fourteentli century there is a beginning 
 of that policy which was carried to its completion dur- 
 ing the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, whereby the 
 scholars and colleges were e.xempted from taxation.^" 
 In 1385 Richard is said to have exempted the scholars 
 of Cambridge "from subsidies, tenths and fifteenths or 
 other taxes for their tenements, schools or books.'"' 
 If this general exemption was made it was seemingly 
 only temporary, for during the fifteenth century the ex- 
 emptions of special colleges continued. ^- 
 
 To those points of contact between the universitites 
 and the central government, which have been discussed, 
 there may be added certain others which also illustrate 
 the unique position of these institutions. It has been 
 shown that some of the taxes were mitigated in favor 
 of the scholars of Oxford and this same policy was 
 carried out as to certain general laws. 
 
 The fourteenth century witnessed, in the enactments 
 of Edward III and Richard II, an attempt on the part 
 of the English crown to suppress certain ecclesiastical 
 
 "Wilkins, Concilia, III, 150. 
 
 " Cil. p. r.. Rich 11.. ISS1-S3. 98. 
 
 " Rogers, op. cit., 8 sq. 
 
 ^"Cooper, I., 272 (1SO4); Ibid., I., 296 (1514). 
 
 '; Ibid., I., 129. 
 
 '"Docs. re!, uiiiv. and coll. Camhr.. I., 43-44; on O.xford, see 
 Stat. coll. O.xford, III., 52, 55, 56, 57; Rogers, op. cit., 105. 
 
abuses, especiall_v papal, throughout the kingdom. 
 From the action of some of these the universities were 
 exempted so that the scholars might not be discouraged 
 in their endeavors to obtain knowledge. The statutes 
 of provisors, enacted during reigns of the two kings 
 mentioned, were among the foremost attempts to check 
 the papal interference in England. In 1392-3, Richard 
 was given the right to modify the statute of that year as 
 he should wish, parliament adding that he should bear 
 in mind the state of and relief of the universities of Ox- 
 ford and Cambridge.'^ In consequence of this discre- 
 tionary power, Richard granted, in 1399, to the chancel- 
 lor and graduates of these universities, that they might 
 sue at the apostolic see for provisions for benefices.'* 
 When Henry IV came to the throne the commons again 
 asked that he should modify the aforesaid statute, bear- 
 ing in mind the universities which "arc the fountains of 
 the clergy of this realm. "'^ The same parliament peti- 
 tioned against pluralities and non-residence asking how- 
 ever, that the scholars of the universities should be 
 exempted from any restrictions upon such practices.'* 
 Henry, like Richard, granted the first of these requests, 
 allowing the present and futuie graduates in divinity 
 and law to sue for provisions at Rome." The same 
 exemption from the effect of this restriction was contin- 
 ued during the following years, in order that the clergy 
 might be encouraged to study at the universities.'^ 
 There is also recorded, during the fifteenth century, an 
 example of the scholars and masters of Cambridge hav- 
 ing been pardoned all praemunires, though this was 
 not a general rule.'" 
 
 There are some other cases of exemption from gen- 
 
 "Rot. l>aii.. III., 301b; O. H. S., Coll., III., 151- 
 
 '* Wood, I., 535 ; Cooper, I., 144. 
 
 "'Rot. pari, in., 4S9a (1400-1401). 
 
 "Ibid., III., 468a. 
 
 "Wood, I., 530-540 (1403); Cooper, I., 149. 
 
 "Cooper, I., 158 (1416), 186 (1437). 
 
 " Ibid., I., 187 (14,57). 
 
75 
 
 eral laws of lesser note. When the regulations against 
 beggars were passed in 1388 a provision was added that 
 those scholars who went begging should be allowed to 
 do so if they had letters testimonial from their chancel- 
 lor.*" The students who were commencing in the uni- 
 versities were also exempted from the effects of the 
 statute of liveries passed during the early years of the 
 fifteenth century.*' When much later the stringent law 
 was enacted against foreign artisans it was not extend- 
 ed to those who should be or were at the universities. *- 
 And, finally, there is in Oxford, a temporary and special 
 exemption in certain cases from the prohibition against 
 unlawful assemblies. ■'^ 
 
 The different subjects already treated have been 
 largely a turning aside from some general rule to make 
 special conditions for the universities. But the kings, 
 besides encouraging them by exemptions and grants of 
 rights and privileges taken from others, showed their 
 favor in their still more positive and personal gifts and 
 grants to these bodies. They stand in the position of 
 direct benefactors of learning. 
 
 One phase of this fostering of the growth of the uni- 
 versities is seen in the royal desire that foreign stu- 
 dents should study in England. In 1229, before the 
 universities had reached a position of any importance, 
 Henry III invited the French scholars, molested at 
 home, to come to England, but he does not mention any 
 particular place where they may study.** When, how- 
 ever, Oxford and Cambridge had attained pre-eminence 
 as seats of learning, he was equally anxious that scholars 
 should enter the kingdom, but then provided that they 
 should study at either of these universities. When 
 Scotland and England were open enemies during the 
 fourteenth century, the English kings granted numer- 
 
 "Stat. realm. II., 58. 
 
 "Cooper, I.. 182 (1429). 
 
 '- Ibid., I.. 306 (1523). 
 
 "Cal. f- r.. Rich. II.. 1381-85. 526 (1385). 
 
 "Wood, I., 204; Cooper, I., 40. 
 
76 
 
 ous licenses to Scotch students allowing them to peace- 
 ably enter the country to study at the universities.''" 
 Such licenses were also granted to Irish students.** 
 Freedom of intercourse was also secured for the French 
 students in the treaty of Bretigny of 1360.*' Yet when 
 foreign students proved unruly or England was at war 
 with their home countries, the king did not hesitate to 
 expell them from the realm.*"* 
 
 The English students, on the other hand, received 
 more material aid than mere licenses to study. Already 
 late in the twelfth century there are examples of the 
 royal Ijeneficence in the record of a number of subsidized 
 students who were living in Oxford on the bounty of 
 the crown.*'-' Yet the royal aid did not end there, for 
 there are records of grants of land and money made to 
 separate colleges,^" and Edward III endowed liberally 
 a college for poor students in Cambridge of his own 
 foundation." Besides this, the several kings prevented 
 by their prohibition, the growth of any universities other 
 than Oxford and Cambridge. It is true, however, that 
 in 1261 Henry III granted a license to the seceding 
 students from Oxford to study at Northampton.^" There 
 they were joined by some scholars from Cambridge and 
 the venture seemed in a fair way to succeed when he 
 revoked his permission and directed the abolition 
 of the newly formed university. °^ Again, in the four- 
 teenth century, the students of Oxford, because of in- 
 ternal dissensions, fled from the town to study in peace 
 at Stamford. °* Their attempt was in vain, for, when their 
 
 " Hardy, Syllabus, 391, 393, 419, 430, 432, 442, 503 sq. 
 
 " Cal. p. r., Ed. I., IJQJ-JSOI, 139, 448; Stat. coll. Oxford, III., 
 47 sq. 
 
 " Cosneau, Les grands traitcs de la guerre de cent ans. 61. 
 
 "Wood, I., 485 (1369); Cooper, I.. 169 (1422). 
 
 "O. H. S., Coll., II., 184 (1195-1199) ; cf. Devon, Issues of the 
 ■exchequer, 6 (1225) ; Cal. c. r.. Ed. II., 1307-13, 199 (1310). 
 
 "■'Cal. p. r.. Ed. III., 1327-30, 176, 19s, 239; Cooper, I., 188. 
 
 "'King's Hall. 
 
 " Rymer, Foedera, ed. Clarke, I., 403. 
 
 " Cooper, I., 48-49. 
 
 "On the whole question see O. H. S., Coll., I., Henson, The 
 Stamford schism. 
 
77 
 
 numbers had grown sufficiently as to bring them into 
 prominence, Edward III stamped out this embryo rival 
 of the older universities. He stated in his writ to this 
 effect "that schools or studies should not in any sort be 
 anywhere held within the kingdom save in places 
 where there are now universities. "^^^ And, indeed, dur- 
 ing the remainder of our period there were no such 
 institutions in England other than Oxford and Cam- 
 bridge. 
 
 The more purely arbitrary actions of the royal power 
 need not detain us for long. Without regarding the 
 decree of banisliment passed by the university the king 
 is found restoring certain scholars to other privileges. "'' 
 He exempted certain men from the action of the uni- 
 versity statutes of Oxford, passed regulations as to de- 
 grees on his own initiative,^* directed that certain men 
 should not be allowed to teach because of their opin- 
 ions,^' and once at least settled a dispute as to an elec- 
 tion in the university of Oxford."" Most of these mat- 
 ters were outside of the usual policy of royal interfer- 
 ence and show to what extent the crown could and would 
 go to enforce its control. 
 
 After all, one might ask, what actual benefits did the 
 king receive from these universities? Was the honor 
 of having two of the great universities of Europe within 
 his kingdom the only recompense? And it must be ans- 
 wered there was little else. Indeed not much more 
 would be necessary for a true head of the nation. 
 In prestige and renown England gained much through 
 the presence of the great teachers at the universities ; 
 great men came to visit and study there : their scholars 
 
 ''^ Cooper, I., 87. 
 
 '■'Stal. coll. Oxford. III., 32.. 39, 41, Wood, I., 489. 
 "Wood, I.. 487-488 (137s). 
 '-'Stat. call. Oxford. III., 40. 
 
 "Wood, I., 5^4-525; Stat. coll. Oxford. III., 44; W.zray. Syl- 
 labus. I., 520. 
 "Wood, I., 516 (1385). 
 
78 
 
 were leaders in the intellectual life of England as well 
 as the wise advisers of the crown. To pious men the 
 prayers of the receivers of the royal benefits might have 
 added to the royal enjoyment of life, though such gifts 
 did not prevent the Oxford students in the thirteenth 
 century from actively aiding the barons. 
 
 Of actual aid asked from the universities by the 
 kings there are but few examples. The earliest case 
 of the kind occurred in 1243 when Henry III requested 
 Oxford and Paris to decided a disputed episcopal elec- 
 tion."^ As Oxford gave a judgment favoring Henry 
 the opposing bishop was publicly defamed in the schools. 
 When the great schism broke out Richard H asked 
 that university and Cambridge for their opinions con- 
 cerning the matter."- Again when the great councils 
 were being held the chancellors of Oxford and Cam- 
 bridge were sent abroad to represent the universities 
 and the honor of England at the council of Constance.*' 
 In 1413 the chancellors had been sent to the rival popes 
 to express the royal decision upon their pretensions."* 
 In secular affairs some use was also made of these great 
 corporations. There are some examples of the king 
 having asked the universities to send men to parlia- 
 ment to give him advice. He requested them, in 1300, 
 to send lawyers to the parliament at Lincoln to advise 
 him concerning the claim of his ancestors to Scotland 
 and we know that Cambridge sent two men, Hugh 
 Sampson and Roger de Waldene, to perform this duty."^ 
 When, again, Edward II had his long dispute with the 
 king of France over the continuance in that country of 
 his wife and eldest son, he caused an account of the state 
 of affairs to be sent to the universities for publication 
 there."" Later in the same year he requested that in 
 
 "' Wood, I., 233. 
 
 "Mbid., I., 533-534; Cooper, I., 144 (1398)- 
 "'Ibid., I., 509; Cooper, I.. 158 
 •; Cooper, I., 155. 
 
 '"Ibid., I., 69; I have not been able to find the names of the 
 Oxford lawyers, though they were undoubtedly elected 
 "Cal. c. r., Ed. II., i3~'3--'7, 55I-5S2. 
 
79 
 
 their sermons and in their prayers tliey should vindicate 
 his actions in this matter."' On the whole, therefore the 
 positive and tangible benefits the crown received were 
 few. 
 
 The marvelous growth of the universities traced in 
 the preceding pages left them at the end of the four- 
 teenth century in a position of almost complete theoreti- 
 cal independence of the local and royal authorities. 
 They now had their own courts; they had prisons in 
 which to place their ofifenders, even though these 
 prisons were not their own, and they had officials whose 
 duty it was to arrest and watch over any who they 
 might imprison. The bishop, once strong in his con- 
 trol, had lost what authority he had over them and the 
 archdeacon's powers had been restricted to very narrow 
 limits. In the town their supervision had been extend- 
 ed over many of the important functions of the borough 
 government and other actions they had gathered into 
 their own hands. From the interference of the royal 
 ofificials they had been to a large extent released through 
 their judicial privileges and, in Oxford at least, through 
 their powers over taxation. Certain local differences 
 appear in their development but these are mainly due to 
 the different positions of the two universities. The 
 episcopal seat was farther from O.xford than from Cam- 
 bridge and its release from the bishop's rule came 
 sooner; the former also grew in numbers more quick- 
 ly than the latter and reaching importance more quick- 
 ly on this account, the royal benefits were generally first 
 bestowed upon Oxford. These are but suggestions, for 
 the real causes of the more rapid growth of Oxford can 
 only be guessed, not shown, nevertheless the position 
 of the universities at the end of our period is not notic- 
 ably different. Cambridge copied Oxford, it is true, 
 in many points and the precedent for many of its royal 
 grants was that Oxford already possessed such rights, 
 vet this mav be but another way of saying that the king 
 
 "' Cal. c. r., Ed. II., 1323-37, 644 (1326) ; Cooper, I., 81. 
 
80 
 
 applied to new organizations the principles he saw work- 
 ing in older and tried institutions. 
 
 In the development of the mediaeval corporation, 
 therefore, the universities occupy an important though 
 not an unique position. The English kings during the 
 middle ages proceeded largely by analogy. When they 
 granted powers to a new borough they generally gave it 
 those possessed in whole or in part by some other bor- 
 ough. Thus Oxford was modeled after the fashion oi- 
 London and other boroughs gained similar privileges by 
 a similar process. Local divergences crept in to suit 
 special conditions and special needs or as a particular 
 favor from the crown, yet the point that strikes an ob- 
 server is the underlying sameness of the royal char- 
 ters and letters patent. And so it was in the case of the 
 universities. The kings of England did not create a 
 wholly new and exceptional institution, but applied to 
 these gatherings of students the principles they had 
 already used in the boroughs and toward the church 
 organizations. An interesting analogy has been drawn 
 between the powers possessed by the universities and 
 those enjoyed by the merchants of the staple under the 
 statute of 29 Edward III.'"* Their privileges and immuni- 
 ties do indeed bear a striking resemblance at many 
 points, but all this means is that when the King wished 
 to set off a body of men, scholars or merchants from 
 probably hostile local authorities, he used similar means 
 to attain his end. Analogies might be pursued along 
 many lines and the result would undoubtedly be that we 
 would find precedents for most of the royal grants to the 
 universities. If, therefore, there is some underlying set 
 of forms governing the development of the many cor- 
 porations of England during the middle ages, this study 
 of the privileges of the universities of Oxford and Cam- 
 bridge will help to show that sameness in the powers of 
 the various organizations of the time which has not, to 
 my mind, been sufficiently emphasized. 
 
 " B. M. Mss., 5959, Plut. XX. A, fol. 191 sq. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 Poll Tax, 2 Richard II. 
 
 L. T. R. Subsidy Enrolled Accounts No. 8. 45 Ed- 
 ward III. to 4 Richard II. .Membrane 4, dorse. 
 
 Compotus Willelmi Dagnill, Ricardi Salesbury Jo- 
 hannis de Bukyngham Johannis de Hampton Walteri 
 Browne et Willelmi Chiselhampton collectorum subsidii 
 predicti in villa Oxonie et suburbiis eiusdem tenandi et 
 percipiendi ad opus Regis juxta assessionem et taxa- 
 cioneni Johannis Gibbcs Willelmi Ci^deshale Willelmi 
 Northryn Nicholai Spicer Thome de Newyn et Roberti 
 Dege assignatorum at dictum subsidium ibidem assiden- 
 'dum et taxandum ac numerum et nomina personarum et 
 cuius status et gradus fuerint et alia (|ue in hac parte re- 
 quinmtur plenarie continentes distincte et aperte certifi- 
 canda et huiusmodi assesiones et taxaciones per indentur- 
 as huiusmodi contrarotulandas et super compotum predic- 
 torum collectorum ad scaccarium Regis testificandas et per 
 rotulos indentatos predictorum assessorum et taxatorum 
 ac collectorum super hunc compotum liberatas. De huius- 
 modi subsidio ut infra. 
 
 lidem reddunt compotum de XXXV'I li. VIII s. VI d. 
 receptis de predicto subsidio contingente omnes per- 
 sonas tam dominos Magnatos quam Communitates in 
 predicta villa O.xonie et suburbiis eiusdem Alinistris et 
 servientibus scolarium luiiversitatis ibidem e.xceptis 
 juxta assessionem et taxacionem supradictas quaruni 
 personarum nomina status gradus et summe particu- 
 lares singillatim annotantur in predictis rotulis indenta- 
 tis ipsorum collectorum assessorum et taxatorum de 
 particulis in thesaurio liberatis. Et de LX s. II d. re- 
 ceptis de subsidio predicto contig^nte predictos Minis- 
 tros et servientes scholarium universitatis predicte per 
 Cancellarium eiusdem universitatis assesso et tenato et 
 per dictum Cancellarium predictis Collectoribus per in- 
 6 
 
82 
 
 denturam liberatis quarum personarum nomina status 
 et gradus singillatim annotantiir in Indentura per dic- 
 tum Cancellarium predictis virtute brevis Regis sibi di- 
 rect! liberata sicut continetur in eisdem rotulis de par- 
 ticiilis in thesaurio liberatis. 
 
 Sumna Recepte XXXIX li. VIII s. VIII d. In the- 
 saurio XXXV li. XVII s. II d. Et eisdem Collector- 
 ibus pro misis et expensis suis V s. Et in thesaurio 
 LXVI s. VI d. 
 
 Et quieti sunt. 
 Appendix B. 
 
 There are numerous uni^ublished records like the fol- 
 lowing of student troubles in the university towns : 
 Coroners' Rolls, No. 12S, dorse: 
 
 Casus Coronatoris de tempore Ade de Spalding ville 
 O.xonie. De anno regni Regis Edwardi XXVto — 
 
 Adhuc de anno XXVI to. Villa Oxonie. Contigit die 
 veneris proxima post festum Sancti Mathie apostoli anno 
 regni Regis Edwardi XXVIto (February 28, 1298) 
 sero quod Fulco Neyrnuyt clericus obiit in hospicio 
 suo ubi manebat in parochia Sancte Mildride virginis 
 Oxonie. Et die Sabati proxima sequente mane 
 visus fuit per Adam de Spalding Coronatorem 
 et habuit unam plagam in oculo sinistro cum 
 
 quadam minuta dicta usque in cerebrum et sic fere 
 
 ])er medium caput. Inquisicio inde capta fuit eodem die 
 coram Coronatore predicto per quatuor parochias pro- 
 pinquiores vidilicet Sancte Mildride Sancti Petri t)ri- 
 entis beate Marie et Onmium Sanctorem. Et omnes 
 Juratores in ilia Inquisicione dicunt super Sacramentum 
 suum quod die Lune in festo Sancti Mathie apostoli an- 
 no predicto statim post horam nonam predictus Fulco 
 ct Willelmus Neyrnuyt cum multis aliis clericis et eorum 
 mancipiis venerunt in alto vico intea- ecclesiam beate Marie 
 et ecclesiam Omnium Sanctorum cum arcubus et sagittis 
 gladiis et bocleariis fundis et aspidibus et aliis diversis 
 armis et insultum fecerunt in omnes laicos quos attingere 
 poterunt ct multos male volneraverunt et domos et schop- 
 
83 
 
 pas quorunclam laicorum freg;erunt et bona et catalla 
 in eisdem inventa ceperunt et felonice asportaverunt 
 contra pacem per quod hutesium magnum tenatum Unt 
 ita quod plures laici supervenerunt ad perturbandum iiial- 
 efactores predictos. Et postquam predictus Fiilco 
 sagittaverat omnes sagittas suas tunc venit ad domum 
 Edwardi de Hales et Basilic uxoris sue juxta ecclesiar.i 
 beate Marie virginis et dictam domum viriliter insultavit 
 cum aliis de societate sua qui volebant dictam domum 
 intrasse et bona in eadeni existencia depredassc. Sed 
 ])redictus Edwardus stans in quodam solario defen- 
 debat domum suam cum arcu suo et ut predictus Fulco 
 respexit ultra Targiam suam predictus Edwardus saggit- 
 tavit eum in oculo sinistro per quod obiit die veneris 
 supradicto. Set habuit omnia Jura ecclesiastica et 
 vixit per quatuor dies. 
 
 Coroner's Roll No. 128, dorse: 
 
 Contigit die Jovis proxima post festum Exaltacionis 
 Sancte Crucis anno regni Regis Edwardi XXVIto (Sep- 
 tember 18, 1298) quod Jobannes Burel obiit in Gaola 
 ville Oxonie circa horam ignitegii. Et die veneres se- 
 quente mane visus fuit per Adam de Spalding Corana- 
 torem et habuit unam plagam in cervice capitis mor- 
 talem continentem in longitudine sc.x pollices et in pro- 
 funditate attigit usque ad cerebrum et in frontem capitis 
 habuit quandam aliam plagam sed non mortalem. Tn- 
 quisco inde capta fuit eodem die coram Coronatore 
 predicto per quatuor parochias propinquiores videlicet 
 Sancti Michaelis Borealis Sancte Mildride Sancte Mar- 
 tini et Omnium Sanctorum. Et omnes Juratores in 
 ilia Inquisicione dicunt super .Sacramentum suum quod 
 predictus Johannes Burel fuit die Jovis supradicto sero 
 ad tabernam servisie ad domum Thome de Staunton 
 cum aliis clericis de Hibernia. Et quidam Nicholaus de 
 Vilers d-e Hibernia clericus et quidam Johannes de 
 Suthfolk cum quibusdam aliis clericis sedcbant in 
 eadem domo bibentes in quadam societate per se et non 
 cum aliis. Tandem mota fuit contencio verborimi inter 
 partes predictas et sic omnes exierunt a dicta domo con- 
 
84 
 
 tendentes. Et statini postquani venerunt in vicum pre- 
 dictus Johannes Burel extraxit gladium suum et instant- 
 er insnltabat predictum Nicholaum et ipse in quantum 
 potuit fusjit tenando hutesium et predictus Johannes de 
 Suthfolk simiHter fugit et dictus Johannes Jjurel semper 
 persequebatur eos viriHter cum gladio suo extracto 
 volens ipsos occidisse. Et dictus Nicholaus videns se nuUo 
 modo posse evadare periculum mortis extraxit gladium 
 suum et vim vi repellando et se ipsum defendendo ne occi- 
 deretur percussit dictum Johannem Burel in fronti sed non 
 mortaliter et idem Johannes nichilominus insulabat predic- 
 tum Nicholaum cum gladio suo virilius velocius et acer- 
 bius quam prius fecerat et ut occidisse voluit et debuit pre- 
 dictum Nicholaum venit predictus Johannes de Suthfolk 
 et cum quadam hachia que vocatur Sparth quam habuit 
 in manu sua percussit dictum Johannem Burel in cervice 
 capitis ita quod de ilia plaga obiit ut predictum est et 
 statini propter hutesium tenatum prius per dictum 
 Nicholaum supervenit multitudo populi et sic omnes at- 
 tachiati fuerunt et inprisonati et ibidem predictus Jo- 
 hannes Burel obiit ut predictum est. Et postea pre- 
 dictus Nicholaus coram H. de Branteston et T. Neyrnuyt 
 Justiciariis ad Gaolam ville Oxionie deliberandam as- 
 signatis deliberatus fuit per patriam. Et predictus Jo- 
 hannes de Suthfolk coram eisdem Justiciariis per patriam 
 convictus fuit de morte illo et quia clericus fuit ideo liber- 
 atus fuit episcopo Lincolniensi. 
 
 Coroner's Roll, No. 23 — Villa Cantebrigie, mem- 
 brane 3 : 
 
 Placita corone tenta coram Stephano Morys seniore et 
 Edmundo Listere Coronatoribus libertatis ville predicte a 
 die lune in Crastino Sancte Marie Magdalene anno reg- 
 ni Regis Edwardi tercii post conquestum XLIII [July 
 23, 1369] usque festum Sancte Luce Evangeliste anno 
 regni regis Ricardi secundi post conquestum quarto 
 [October 18, 1380] . 
 
 Accidit apud Cantebrigian die Sabati in vigilia Pente- 
 costes anno regni regis Edwardi tercii post conquestum 
 
XLVIII [May 20, 1324] quod quidam Rogeriis Keb- 
 bel inventus fuit mortuus habcns unam plagam in capite 
 ex parte dextra longitudinis quatuor pollicium et pro- 
 funditatis duorum pollicium. Inquisicio facta de morte 
 predicti Rogeri per Willclmum de Cumbertom Willelnium 
 Hyndercle Johannem Colvile skynnere Johannem de 
 Northfolk Johannem Coupere Robertum de Holm Ricard- 
 um Bowyere Andream Breustere Ricardum Ferrour Jo- 
 hannem Albyn Johannem Hosyere et Thomam Mayden- 
 ston. Qui dicunt super sacramentum suum quod die 
 Martis in festo Sancti Marci Evangeliste anno supra- 
 dicto [April 25, 1374 1 ante mediam noctem in Cante- 
 brigia apud cornarium Sancti Benedicti quedam rixa orie- 
 batur inter Magistrum Robertum Utesle et Johannem de 
 Stowe Johannem Saunford et alios clericos et ceperunt 
 pugnare inter se et cum ntuiciatum fuit sociis dicti Johan- 
 nis Saunford de diversis hospiciis et de Aula Regis vener- 
 imt clerici ad dictum cornarium arl dictum Johannem 
 Saunford succurrenduni cum quibus vcnit dictus Rog- 
 erus Kebbel. Et quidam Ricardus Reyner venit cum 
 uno pollax et dicto Rogero dedit plagam supradictam 
 et sic eum felonice interfecit de qua plaga languebat a 
 dicto feste Sancti Alarci usque in vigiliam Pentecostes 
 supradictam quo die obiit. Et statim post feloniam fac- 
 tam predictus Ricardus se retraxit. Et flicunt quod pre- 
 dictus Ricardus non babuit aliqua terras tcnementa 
 bona seu catalla que extendi sen appreciari possunt. 
 
 Rogerus Reyner clerictis pri- ( Hcnricus Masoun 
 mo eum invenit plegii sui ' Jniianne( ni ) \sic\ Curre 
 f Hugo Coupere j Hcnricus Amant 
 
 plegii sui i Thomas Dount 
 
 c 
 
 • P ! dalfridus Soutere ( Ricardus Malton 
 u ! plegii sui ( Hcnricus Dounyng 
 
 a I Husro Forthe ( Thomas Catoun 
 
 5 I plegii sui [ Ricardus Hoog 
 
 O*- I Ricardus Houghton ( Hugo Scarre 
 
 l^ plegii sui ijohanne{m) [sic] Lokyere 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY.* 
 
 ■ I ■ , ■ " ■"■ 
 
 Griffiths, John : Enactments in parliament specially 
 concerning the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. 
 Oxford, 1869. 
 
 Huber, V. A. : A general history of the universities 
 of Oxford and Cambridge from the earliest period. 
 Translation by F. W. Newman. London, 1843. 2 vols. 
 
 Rashdall. : The universities of Europe during the 
 middle ages. Oxford, 1895. 2 vols, in 3 parts. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE 
 
 Cooper, C. H.: Annals of Cambridge. Cambridge, 
 1842. 4 vols. 
 
 Documents relating to the university and colleges 
 of Cambridge. Printed by the commissioners appoint- 
 ed by the Queen to inquire into the state * * * of the 
 said university. London, 1852. 3 vols. 
 
 Dyer, George: History of the university of Cam- 
 bridge. London, 1814. 2 vols. 
 
 , : The privileges of the university of 
 
 Cambridge. London, 1824. 2 vols. 
 
 Fuller, Thomas : The history of the university of 
 Cambridge. Edition, Prickett & Wright. Cambridge, 
 1840. 
 
 Maitland, F. W. and M. Bateson: The charters of the 
 borough of Cambridge. Cambridge, 1901. 
 
 Mullinger, J. B. : The university of Cambridge from 
 the earliest times to the accession of Charles the First. 
 Cambrige, 1873-83. 2 vols. 
 
 *This biblii>grapliy is not intended to be complete. I have only 
 noted those books either directly quoted in iny foot notes or 
 which stand ns a basis for some of the ideas expressed in the text. 
 This will account for the omission of chronicles and of various 
 histories of the colleges which yielded nothing to the general 
 subject in hand. 
 
87 
 
 Oxford. 
 
 Anstey, H. : Munimenta academica. Rolls Series 
 London, 1868. 2 vols. 
 
 Boase, C. W. : O.xford. London, 1887. 
 
 Broderick, G. C. : A history of the university of Ox- 
 ford. 3rd ed., London, 1894. 
 
 Henson, H. H. : Letters relating to Oxford in the 
 fourteenth century. U.xford Hist. Soc. Collectanea IL 
 Oxford, 1890. 
 
 Holland, T. E. : The university of Oxford in the 
 twelfth century. Ox. Hist. Soc. Coll. L Oxford, 1885. 
 
 Little, A. G. : The grey friars in O.xford. O. H. S. 
 Oxford, 1892. 
 
 Lyte, H. C. Ma.xwell : A history of the university of 
 Oxford. London, 1886. 
 
 Neubauer, A.: Notes on the Jews in Oxford. O. H. 
 S. Coll. n. Oxford, 1890. 
 
 Ogle, Octavius: Royal letters addressed to O.xford. 
 Oxford, 1892. 
 
 , : The Oxford market. O. H. S. Coll. 
 
 II. Oxford, 1890. 
 
 Peshall. J. : The histor}- of the university of Oxford. 
 Oxford, 1773. 
 
 Rashdall, H. : The friars preachers and the uni- 
 versity. O. H. S. Coll. II. Oxford, 1890. 
 
 Rogers, J. E. Thorold : Oxford city documents. O. 
 H. S. Oxford, 1891. 
 
 Smith, L. T. : Parliamentary petitions relating to 
 Oxford [1279-1496]. O. I-I. S. Coll. HI. Oxford, 
 1896. 
 
 Statutes of the colleges of O.xford. Printed by the 
 desire of her Majesty's commissioners for inquiring into 
 the state of the university of Oxford. London, 1853. 
 3 vols. 
 
 Turner, W. H. and Co.xe : Calendar of charters and 
 rolls preserved in the Bodleian library. C)xford, 1878. 
 
 Wood, Anthony a.: The history and anti(juities of 
 
88 
 
 the university of Oxford. Ed. J. Gutch. Oxford, 
 1792-96. 3 vols. 
 
 Gener.\l. 
 
 Manuscripts. 
 
 British Museum : 
 
 5808, 5813, 5820, 5821. 5822, 5837, 5838, 5842, 5843, 
 
 5845, 5859. 5865, 5884. 
 
 Add., 4507,45690; Faust., C. Ill, C. VII; Harl., 1909, 
 2058, 4115, 41 16, 7028, 7030, 7031, 7037, 7040, 7043, 
 7048 ; Lansd., 325 ; Stowe, 799. 
 Public Record Office : 
 
 Coroners' rolls, Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 
 24, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135. 
 
 L. T. R. Subsidy enrolled accounts, Nos. i, 3, 6, 8, 
 
 li, 13- 
 
 Fine rolls, Nos. 144, 152, 157, 158, 172, 173, 179, 180. 
 Gaol delivery rolls, 79, 86, 87, 113, 125, 161, 180, 181. 
 Assize rolls, 95, 98, 103, 717. 
 County placita (Chancery), Nos. 13, 26, 29. 
 
 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 
 Exchequer, lay subsidies : — , — , — , — , — , — , — , 
 
 5 6 8 42 45 55 62 
 
 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 161 161 161 161 161 
 
 ') » » ) ) ' » 1 y t y t » 
 
 63 64 85 92 103 1 12 1 13 4 6 8 9 18 
 161 161 i6r i6r i6i i6i i6i i6i i6i 
 
 t i "~t J 1 t ^ y ) * 
 
 30 31 32 36 45 47 49 56 57 
 Printed. 
 
 Calendar close rolls : 
 
 Edward II., 1307-27. 4 vols. 
 
 Edward III., 1327-1339. 4 vols. 
 Calendar patent rolls : 
 
89 
 
 Edward I., 1281-1307. 3 vols. 
 
 Edward II., 1307-1317. 2 vols. 
 
 Edward III., 1327-1343. 5 vols. 
 
 Richard II., 1377-85. 2 vols. 
 
 Calendar papal registers. Papal letters, 1 198-1362 
 3 vols. 
 
 Calendar feudal aids, 1284- 1431. Vol. I. 
 
 Hardy, T. D.:Syllabus of documents in Rymer's 
 Foedera. Rolls Series. London, 1869-85. 3 vols. 
 
 Maitland, F. W. : Records of the parHament held at 
 Westminster in 1305. R. S. London, 1893. 
 
 Merewether, H. A. and A. J. Stephens : The history 
 of the boroughs and municipal corporations of the 
 United Kingdom. London, 1835. 3 vols. 
 
 Palgrave, F. : Parliamentary writs and writs of mili- 
 tary summons [Edward I — Edward III|. Record Com- 
 mission. Lontlon, 1827-34. 2 vols. 
 
 Rotuli parlianientorum ut et petitioues et i)lacita in 
 parliamento [1278-1503]. n. p., n. d. 6 vols. 
 
 Rymer, T. : Foedera, conventiones, litterae, etc. 
 [1101-1654]. Edition of A. Clark. Rec. Com. Lon- 
 don, 1816-69. 4 vols. 
 
 Shirley, W. W. : Royal and other historical letters 
 illustrative of the reign of Henry III. Roll Series. 
 London, 1862-66. 2 vols. 
 
 Wilkins, David : Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hi- 
 berniae A. D. 446-1718. London, 1737. 4 vols. 
 
MAY 18 1903 
 

 sO^ 
 
 X^^^ 
 
 A ./.. 
 
 
 OiV 
 
 
 -■\ 
 
 \.^ 
 
 
 ■. ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ,o 
 
 
 
 -i^''l 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 ^:^^ 
 
 
 s r,. 
 
 ^■^. .,^^' 
 
 ,v, * >«f'-L^'-;X ''_ 
 
 .0- 
 
 
 V .o>^ 
 
 .^^^■% 
 
 .A-^' 
 
 \V ./ 
 
 I, '> 
 
 ■^^ c^^ 
 
 -^. >^'^ 
 
 "<^_. V*'' 
 
 OO 
 
 
 .^-v. 
 
 
 ^. ,,^^ 
 
 A^^-^^ 
 
 
 •0^ 
 
 ^^^ "^^ 
 
 
 
 ■-lT- 
 
 ■'•'■■, 
 
 •^.^■ 
 
 ,^ : ^^>' '^x 
 
 -<>. c^^ 
 
 
 ^0 0. 
 
 OO 
 
 \'' 
 
 V- 
 
 ■ v^' 
 
 :. ^^.^ 
 
 \V 
 
 ^- .»*c. 
 
 ,x-^' 
 
 ^^..^ 
 
 xN^^- 
 
 ."^-cyafc^ ^y 
 
 '■■■-:-^: ^-^ 
 
 , ^0^ 
 
 
 
 
 <y. C'^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ^.0^ 
 
 x^- ^- 
 
 
 ' N " 
 
 .^> 
 
 V ^1 
 
 
V 
 
 
 
 : ,^^"v. 
 
 .^~'^' 
 
 
 ~- ■ < '', 
 
 2i '.(p^'-- 
 
 .' .0- 
 
 
 ■'*-:j^ ' 
 
 ■./ .^\ 
 
 ~ .-\ ' 
 
 
 "*-."~;v'' " ■-.'^ " 
 
 rr 
 
 \> •/',. 
 
 .^^ ,--.^. 
 
 -V. CN^ 
 
 ,^^ '-^^ .'%■ 
 
 .<^' ' 
 
 -.. ,0' 
 
 A ' 
 
 ,v^ Ci^ 
 
 ;j^: 
 
 ■J o 
 
 
 
 
 ^- 0^ 
 
 ■■ .'V 
 
 
 \^' '■> 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' ^'": 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 o"^ C' 
 
 ■ <• 
 
 
 
 '-. •** 
 
 ^'' 
 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 " ^ 
 
 
 
 .V- 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 ' /■ 
 
 ■> 
 
 , \ 
 
 
 
 '-'^ "■ ■ ■., 
 
 
 1 r 
 
 ' " ■ v' 
 
 \ 
 
 
 ./'^w";^ 
 
 ^' 
 
 
 ;-— : :' ■' 
 
 
 
 
 i i ";■. 
 
 
 
 
 .s\^ ■^.■. 
 
 
 0. 
 
 
 
 <-^ ^ 
 
 ,\ 
 
 
 _f . 
 
 \ 
 
 \ ■ 
 
 v^^ 
 
 ''^ 
 
 ■/ .^ 
 
 
 
 ■-' 
 
 :"^'-~- 
 
 -, ^* 
 
 ^>" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 % s^ : 
 
 ■ ' -i : 
 
 \'v' 
 
 
 
 : ) ; 
 
 -^/ .^^ 
 
 .A" 
 
 ,A* 
 
 
 
 -V^ v*^ 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 022 127 918 f