Street), and ran along the west part of Senate House
Passage to our Gate of Honour, where it met the wall
of St. Mary's garden. Here it turned to the right by
' Schools Street, 1 as far as the present entrance to the
University Library, where it turned again to the left
by 'Regent's Walk,' coming out opposite St. Mary's
Church. Most of the space between this crooked road
and our College was crowded with old houses.
It should be understood that the proposal of the
University was at first to place some part of the Senate
House opposite our Gate of Honour. This would have
hindered access to the schools, and would have greatly
obstructed the light and air on which Caius had laid
such stress. The present Senate House was commenced
in 1722, but the west end of it, towards the library, had
not been completed ; and a scheme was now, in 1727, under
discussion to complete it opposite our College. Not un-
naturally, the Master and Fellows protested against this
scheme, Dr. Gooch declaring that ' it was so injurious
to Caius College that I am fully resolved not to bear it.'
The case was brought before the Court of Chancery,
where it lasted from 1727 to 1730. The proposed
scheme was finally dropped, and the space between the
Senate House and library left open as we now see it.
It was at this time that the Passage was completed as
a thoroughfare into Trinity Street. The houses around
outside the College were thus removed, but a block
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 179
still remained at the corner, where our Gate Tower now
stands. This corner was not acquired by the College
till 1782 ; the houses on it stood till 1868.
It has been already remarked, as characteristic of the
century, that hardly any additions were made to our
endowments. There is, indeed, one important exception
in Mr. Wortley ; but when he is spoken of as an excep-
tion, it must be remembered that he really belonged to
a much older generation, for he entered the College in
1671, in the early days of Ellys' tutorship. He lived
to a very great age, and, dying in 1749, left a large
sum of money to the College, with which three Fellow-
ships were eventually founded. In connection with this
endowment, the Wortley ' speech ' was annually delivered
by one of the Fellows on his foundation. This was a
means not unfrequently adopted for perpetuating the
memory of a benefactor. In medieval times it had been
the universal rule that the donor should be annually
commemorated by a solemn Mass in the College chapel ;
in fact, this was often exacted as a condition in the
deed of foundation. In later times the plan was occa-
sionally adopted of requiring a speech from the Fellow
or scholar who was benefited. Thus, Wortley pre-
scribed that on his feast-day a speech should be delivered
6 in the Hall or other public place, the bell being tolled
at 11 o'clock ; in commendation of learning, the founders
of the College,' etc. This custom was adhered to until,
by the action of the Commissioners in abolishing all
distinction between the different foundations, there
ceased to be any special ' Wortley Fellow.'
About this time there was also a large addition to
the number of livings in the presentation of the College.
180 CAIUS COLLEGE
As has been already remarked (p. 13), in early times
the Fellows had no special inducement to retire to a
country parish ; but after the Reformation, when priests
could marry, but Fellows could not, the custom that a
vacant living should be offered to the Fellows in turn
became so fixed that at last it acquired the force of law,
and as the number of Fellows increased the demand for
livings increased, too. Wilton, Foulden, and Mutford
had been part of the original endowment secured by
Bateman ; Mattishall, St. Michael Coslany, and Bin-
combe had been added afterwards, and three or four
others had accrued by gift or purchase. About 1705
Stephen Camborn, Rector of Lawshall, and former
scholar of the College, left about ^3,000 'to Keys
College to be laid out in the purchase of a living. 1 The
spelling of the name, and the suggestion that one living
could fetch this sum, gave opportunity to his relations
to dispute the will on the ground of insanity. There
was, in consequence, a Chancery suit,' which was decided
in favour of the College. No less than six livings,
those, namely, of Ashdon, Lavenham, Great Melton,
Long Stratton, Oxburgh, and Blofield, were thus
acquired.
As we have several references about this time to the
College porter, a few words may be added here about
the duties of that officer. That someone must have
performed these duties from the first is obvious ; but it
may be remarked that in early days his work would be
slight. In a college there was nothing corresponding
to the crowd of visitors and guests who had to be
admitted at the monastery gate ; the students were
extremely few, and mostly in strict subjection to rule ;
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 181
moreover, at an early hour the keys were handed over
to the Master, and left in his custody for the night.
When the College was enlarged, and pensioners grew
numerous, the porter became more necessary. Accord-
ingly, Dr. Caius expressly defined his functions, left a
sum of money for his support, and decreed that he was
to wear a uniform, and a badge with his (Caius 1 ) arms
on it. The uniform in time was dropped, but during
the eighteenth century we find such notices as this :
'For a hanger for the porter, 10 s (1719) **; and again,
somewhat later : ' For a sword for the porter." What
can have been the object of this ? We can only suppose
that it was for the defence of his masters when they
went on journeys. Till far into the eighteenth century
all journeys for business were made on horseback. Nearly
every year the Master and Bursar, and perhaps another
Fellow, rode to the distant College estates (one of which
was in Dorsetshire) to inspect them, and to hold manorial
courts. These journeys, of course, took several weeks,
and it was the custom for the porter to accompany the
party as an escort. Thus, in 1662, the expense of this
expedition, consisting of the Master, two Fellows, the
porter, and another servant, came to over 50. Con-
sidering the serious risk in those days of attacks from
highwaymen, it seems only a reasonable precaution that
the escort should be armed. Till 1754-, when the entrance
from Trinity Lane was closed, the porter's lodge probably
stood there. Later on, when the Gate of Humility
became the customary entrance, it must have been
transferred to this latter position. As far back as
memory and tradition extend, it was situated in one of
the old houses which then stood in the south - east
182 CAIUS COLLEGE
corner of our ground, a few yards from the Gate of
Humility.
James Burrough, twenty-sixth Master, was a son of
James Burrough, M.D., of Bury St. Edmunds, where
he was born September 1, 1691. After some years at
Bury School, he was admitted pensioner at our College
in 1707. He graduated B.A. 1712, and M.A. 1716.
He was elected a Fellow in 1712, and resided ever
afterwards in College, holding the various offices open
to a layman. In the University he held the post of
Esquire Bedell from 1727 until his election to the
mastership, February 27, 1754. In the College quarrel
he seems to have been somewhat on the Master's side ;
at least, he indirectly aided the schemes of the latter
by consenting to hold the post of locum-tenens, with its
very limited powers, for about twelve years.
He was by profession an architect or perhaps we
ought rather to say that he was such by choice, for
there seems no evidence of his having had any regular
training in the art, and all his life was spent in College.
Mr. J. W. Clark says of him that he was 'an amateur
architect of some skill and considerable reputation in
the University, where he used his influence to introduce
the classical style which had then become fashionable.'
Popular repute has assigned to him, as his principal
local achievement, the design of the Senate House ; but
this is an error, as it seems certain that a regular archi-
tect, James Gibbs, really undertook the work, Burrough
having only sketched out the general design. There is,
however, still a good deal of work to be seen in Cambridge
which is really his own. The sides of our Gonville
Court were faced by him, about 1754, nearly as they
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 183
now stand. The cupola over the combination-room
was designed by him in 1728. He transformed the hall
of Queens 1 into an Italian chamber in 1732, 'beautified 1
Emmanuel Chapel in 1735, and designed the north wing
of the front court of Peterhouse in 1736. He faced the
quadrangle of Trinity Hall about 1742. The Doctors'
Gallery in St. Mary's Church, so familiar to Cambridge
men, until 1863, under the name of 'Golgotha,' was his.
He seems also to have been frequently consulted about
buildings in the town and county of Cambridge.
The great disappointment of his professional life was
connected with the east facade of the University Library.
He had prepared a design for this in harmony with the
Senate House, which, it is generally admitted, combined
both beauty and convenience. This, however, was set
aside, through the influence of the Duke of Newcastle,
who was then Chancellor, in favour of the present design.
Cole says of this :
'Whatever were the motives, the friends of Mr. Burrough,
and he had no enemies, though the expectants voted for
the lucrative side, thought this not only a great slight
thrown unnecessarily on a very worthy member and old
servant of the University, who had deserved better, but
that the building of a new front to the Library, on a
different design from that of the adjoining Senate House,
was absurd and ill-judged. It occasioned a good deal of
animosity and ill-temper in the University ; and the Duke,
in order to cajole and bring into temper Mr. Burrough,
soon after procured him a knighthood.'
During the latter part of his life, in fact, during
most of his time as Master, he was much crippled by
illness. Cole says of him :
184 CAIUS COLLEGE
' He died a bachelor ; was a great virtuoso in painting,
prints, and medals, of which he had a very choice and
valuable collection. He was always my particular friend
and acquaintance, and was as honest and worthy a man as
ever lived ; but being a very large and corpulent man, who
lived freely and took no exercise, it is no wonder he fell
into so ill an habit of body, or rather that he lived so
long.'
He died in College August 7, 1764, and was buried
in the ante-chapel, where there is a stone to his memory.
His portrait is in our Lodge. He was a considerable
benefactor to the College, bequeathing an estate of
about 30 annual value in Wilton, Norfolk. He also
left his large collection of medals, above referred to,
for our library, as well as a great number of books.
Sir James Burrough was an active member of the
Society of Antiquaries, and much interested in anti-
quities, but he published nothing on his own account.
He had worked much at the history of the abbey in his
native town of Bury, and assisted Dr. Batteley in his
work on that subject published in 1745. There are
one or two MSS. in the British Museum which consist
of collections by him for a history of that abbey, but
they were never completed or published.
John Smith, twenty-seventh Master, 1764-1795, is,
perhaps, personally the most insignificant in the roll of
occupants of the Lodge, in which respect he may be
considered as a not inappropriate headpiece to mark
the close of a century of decline. It must be admitted,
however, that the Fellows, if they were to follow the
customary rule of selecting one of themselves, could not
apparently have done any better. Of the twelve
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 185
seniors at the time, ten were clergymen, and belonged
therefore to the class which is more apt than any other
to display its learning in print. So far as can be
ascertained, the entire literary production of these
twelve amounts to one single visitation sermon.
John Smith was son of Henry Smith, an attorney of
Coltishall, Norfolk, and a well - known man in his
county. He is alluded to by Blornefield as ' Harry
Smith of Norfolk. 1 John was trained at Eton for
six years, and admitted at our College in 1732. He
soon became a scholar ; graduated B.A. in 1736, M.A.
in 1739, and D.D. in 1764. He was elected a Fellow
in 1739, and for a time held various College offices.
He began work as curate of his native parish, Coltis-
hall, to which cure he was ordained priest in 1739. He
was chosen to the mastership after Burroughs death,
August 17, 1764.
In the University he was Lowndean Professor of
Astronomy for twenty-four years, from 1771 to 1795.
What may have been his claims to this post we cannot
say, for, following the usual practice of the time, he
seems to have delivered no lectures, nor can I find that
he ever published any work, or contributed to any
scientific journal. That he did make observations in
his own Lodge, there was no University observatory
then, seems probable ; for there is an entry in our
' Gesta," November 17, 1764, to allow him 'to make
such alterations in the south parapet, over the ante-
chapel, as may be thought necessary for the reception
of his transit telescope.' Perhaps the unusual possession
of such an instrument caused his election to the pro-
fessorship ; but his candid friend, Cole, suggests that
186 CAIUS COLLEGE
this was due to Court favour. In 1783 he was collated
to the chancellorship of Lincoln, which he held until
his death.
The following is what his friend has to say about his
life and character :
' This downright honest man is the son of an attorney
in Norfolk, who had but one leg. Dr. Smith has no other
preferment ; but as a bachelor, with a private fortune, he
lives very hospitably and much esteemed by his acquaint-
ance. There is an excellent picture in the Lodge, by
Reynolds, very like him. Smith is a plain, honest man, of
strong passions when moved. An eternal smoker of tobacco ;
pretends to a taste in painting, and may possibly under-
stand it, though he looks as if he did not ; and has such
an inarticulate way of expressing himself that very few
people understand what he says. He has a brother's
widow and her children ; a Mrs. Smith who lives with him
and keeps his house.'
This was Margaret, daughter of Charles Atthill, and
widow of his younger brother Joseph. One of the
children referred to was Joseph, afterwards Fellow of
the College, and for many years confidential secretary
to Mr. Pitt, whose son, again, John James, was in after-
years a well-known tutor of the College. Another of
the children mentioned by Cole was Mary, who married
Dr. Porter, Bishop of Clogher.
' He began during his Vice-Chancellorship, and finished
this year (1768) what would have much pleased Sir James
Burrough : I mean the west end of the Senate House,
according to the plan drawn by Sir James himself, and
agreeable to the rest of the building, all in Portland stone.
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 187
There is an iron balustrade (the present one) already
arrived in Cambridge, which is to go from this west end to
the old building, so that there will be no obstruction from
Caius College, which is rather much improved by so beautiful
a part of the building in view of it. The Porta Honoris,
close by it, is in so ruinous a state as to be necessary to
wholly take it down. The Master told me it was in
debate whether to erect another like it or not, which
would be very expensive/
Fortunately, the sacrilege was avoided, and nothing
more was undertaken, at a somewhat later date,
than some restoration of what was actually decayed.
Though Dr. Smithes long tenure of office has left no
trace behind that seems in any way to depend on his
own initiative or exertions, he does appear to have
been a fair man of business, and to have been well
acquainted with the affairs of the College. There are
several MSS. in our library containing notes by him on
the previous history of our estates and College income.
He died June 17, 1795, and was buried, June 21, in
the chapel. There is a slab to his memory in the ante-
chapel. He left =200, the interest to be employed in
increasing the income of the Wendy Fellow. He also
left a small estate in Cheshire to the University, for
the increase of the Lowndean professorship. The rest
of his property was left to his brother's family.
If Richard Bel ward, twenty - eighth Master, from
1795 to 1803, did not rival his predecessor in the
characteristic of insignificance, it must be remembered
that he had but a short period in which to display his
capacity. He was a son of Richard Fisher, surgeon, of
Long Stratton, Norfolk, where he was born. He was
188 CAIUS COLLEGE
admitted a sizar in 1765 ; became a scholar soon after-
wards ; graduated, as ninth wrangler, in 1769 ; M.A.
1772 ; and D.D. 1796, having been elected Master
July 1, 1795. He was ordained deacon in 1769, and
priest in 1772. He was presented to the College
living of Long Stratton in 1794, but resigned this in
the following year on becoming Master. He was
elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1790. In
1791 he took the name Bel ward.
He died at Roydon, Norfolk, May 16, 1803, and was
buried at Diss, where there is a monument to him and
to his mother. By his will he left to the College some
shares in the Grand Junction Canal, of the annual
value of about 60. The proceeds were to be devoted
to < exhibitions to four students who are sizars and
natives of Norfolk, whom the Master shall think most
deserving. 1 This provision led to a certain difficulty,
for, as will be presently explained, sizars were almost
extinct, and by the time the legacy 'became available
were entirely so. The exhibitions were, therefore,
bestowed upon deserving pensioners in the College.
There are only two domestic events to record during
this period, both of them regrettable. The first of
these concerned the Master's lodge, which had re-
mained unaltered since the time of Dr. Caius, with the
exception of certain internal improvements effected
under Dr. Gooch. In 1795 a considerable addition
was made by building backwards into the garden. In
this way the present dining-room, and drawing-room
over it, were built. Very unfortunately, however, at
the same time, the ancient turret-staircase on the
garden side of the Lodge, in the building of which
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 189
Dr. Caius had taken such interest, was destroyed. It
was an interesting and picturesque construction, and, as
it stood several feet from the new rooms, its removal
would seem to have been quite wanton. It is shown in
Loggan^s engraving.
The other unfortunate occurrence is one for which
the College cannot be blamed, unless indirectly for
carelessness. It was the loss, by burglary, of most of
the ancient plate, in the year 1800. The theft was
one of a succession which took place about the same
time in private houses and in Colleges. In our case the
loss was very serious, amounting to 2,000 ounces, and
including, it is to be feared, amongst many other old
and valuable articles the great silver salver which Caius
had presented at the dedication feast in 1558. The
first theft in our College was from the combination-
room, after which Mr. Wilkins, the architect, de-
clared that he would construct an absolutely burglar-
proof plate-closet. In a few weeks this was broken
open, and the contents removed. Two persons were
convicted for the theft, of whom one was executed and
the other transported for life. One article only was
recovered, namely, a small silver mug. The thief, it
appears, thought his beer tasted so nice in this mug
that he could not bear to have it melted with the rest,
and contented himself with blacking it over outside. It
was an important piece of evidence in his conviction.
It may sound like covert sarcasm, after speaking of a
century of continuous decline, to say that at the close
of that period the change was effected from the old to
the new system, and that medieval Cambridge had
developed into modern Cambridge. But in a sense the
190 CAIUS COLLEGE
statement is perfectly true. The old system, so far as
it involved general methods and regulations, was still in
vogue at the beginning of the period. The old statutes
were still in force, or, at least, efforts were continually
being made to enforce them. At the end of the period
the methods and regulations were in many respects sub-
stantially what they now are. If during the transfor-
mation the result was for many years as unsatisfactory
as we have seen, the fault was presumably on the part
of those who had to work the rules. The change from
the old to the new was so widespread that it will be
advisable to discuss it in some detail.
Consider first the social relations of the students in
College. At the commencement of the century the
ancient order prevailed still. There were three classes
of students, sharply distinguished from each other, viz.,
fellow-commoners, pensioners, and sizars. These classes
were almost equally numerous, and, from all that we can
gather, they had but little communication with each
other. The social distinctions which marked them at
home remained deeply stamped upon the youths through-
out their college career. By the end of the century
these distinctions had practically passed away. But
few Fellow - commoners were admitted, and most of
these were either married men or of such an age as to
put them more into sympathy with the Fellows than
with the pensioners. The sizars may be said to have
disappeared by the same time, so far as our College is
concerned. The indirect consequences of such a change
are obvious. So long as a community, small to begin
with, was divided into several classes which had little
or no communication with each other, it is plain that
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 191
nearly all that we now regard as characteristic of college
life was impossible. No club, for instance, whether for
intellectual or athletic purposes, which should be at all
representative of the College, could exist; and, as a
matter of fact, there were none such.
As the sizar system has been very little understood
by those who have been loudest in its condemnation, it
will be convenient to give here a short sketch of its
origin, and of the steps by which it was gradually
abolished. To state the difference in an epigrammatic
form, we may say that the modern opponent assumes
that the system degraded students into servants, whilst
its ancient supporters claimed that it raised servants
into students. Going back to the time of the Refor-
mation, one problem that had to be solved was how to
provide a supply of educated clergy now that such an
important source as the monasteries had been cut off.
We know how earnestly some of the preachers of the
day, men like Latimer and Dr. Leaver, of St. John's,
appealed to the wealthy merchants and others to take
upon themselves the support of promising young men
at the Universities ; just as Dean No well reminded Mrs-
Frankland of the * poor towardly youths that lacked
exhibition.' But, in the failure of such help, what
other resource was there ? The colleges had difficulty
enough to support their own establishment; scholar-
ships were yet very scarce (there were but three in our
College in 1530) ; so it is plain that if poor scholars
were to be provided for they must do something to earn
their living. Two or three such posts had been pro-
vided from the first, in the offices of the butler, the
steward, and the cook, but there was need for more of
these, and the sizarships really provided a resource.
192 CAIUS COLLEGE
Some of the sizars helped in the kitchen or buttery,
others were the servants of the Master or of the senior
Fellows, and were called private or ' proper ' sizars, a
term which lingered till very lately in some colleges.
In our admission register it will be found that they
are always assigned to this or that Fellow as his sizar.
They doubtless did ordinary valets 1 duties, so far as
these were wanted in College, but their principal func-
tion was to wait upon the Fellows at table. They had,
accordingly, no table of their own, but sat down and
finished what the Fellows left.
When we try to look at this arrangement from the
point of view of our ancestors, one consideration must
be borne in mind. The position of ' menial dependence 1
on the part of a youth of the age at which students
then came was not considered as in any way degrading.
Everyone acquainted with the habits of the sixteenth