THE CASE OF Mr. JONAS PROAST, Late CHAPLAIN of All-Souls College in Oxford, &c.

MR. Proast, late Chaplain of All-Souls College, thinks himself unjustly treated, in being removed from the said College, for these several Reasons.

First, He says that a Warden of All-Souls cannot by his own Authority, even for a just Cause, displace a Chaplain.

Secondly, He urges, that if a Chaplain was remove­able by the Warden alone for a just Cause, yet here in this Case, there was no good ground for his removal.

Thirdly, and lastly, He insists, that if a statutable War­den could remove a Chaplain, yet Mr. Finch could not challenge any right of expulsion, being no Statutable Warden.

To each of which Propositions, be pleased to consider these following Answers.

Mr. Proast's first Proposition. That supposing Mr. Finch to be a Statutable Warden, yet he could not of his own Autho­rity expel him, because a Chaplain falls under the same Go­vernment as a Fellow of the College; and since a Fellow cannot be expelled by the Warden, without the Officers, therefore neither can a Chaplain.

In giving satisfaction to this Argument, I shall, first, by way of Introduction, shew what sort of Officer a Chaplain of All-Souls is; and then, secondly, endeavour to prove, that he is amoveable at the pleasure of the Warden alone.

First, A Chaplain in All-Souls College hath a Ministerial, and Precarious Office; he is provided by the Head, for the Service of the College; he is brought in by him alone, and is removeable by the same Authority. From his attendance on the Chappel he is often called Minister Capellae; from the Incertainty of his Interest, he is as frequently named Con­ductitius. And in any College, whenever the Founder de­signed to vest a lasting Estate in a Chaplain, he constituted him a Chaplain-Fellow, and by that Addition, gave him an higher and more durable Interest. This usual and ordinary distinction would be altogether unnecessary, if, without that extraordinary Provision, a Chaplain, de Communi jure was en­tituled to the Rights of a Fellow; This is the Notion of a Chaplain in general, and in All-Souls College in particular: There is no one Statute that hath any relation either to the Election or Government of a Chaplain, they being no where so much as mentioned, but in those passages where it is pro­per to assign them their Commons, and their Places in the Chappel, and Hall; And it is observable, that above their bare Commons, they stand meerly upon the Courtesie of the [Page 3] Accountants at the end of the year, for any further Gratuity. They take no Oath as Fellows do. They are Inrolled in no Register as Fellows are. They are not subject to the same Penalties inflicted by the same Officers, and (which is a plain Argument of their dependance on the Warden) they have their Degrees given them in the House, not as Fellows, by the Warden's consent and Fellows, but by the Warden only; in a word, they are in all things, but that of wait­ing, upon the same bottom as Clerks, and Choristers, who, ever since the Foundation of the College, have been turned out, as well as put in, by the sole Authority of the Warden; all of them have had no other Admission, than that of the Warden's putting their Names into the Buttery Book, where­as the Fellows are admitted by the Warden, in the presence, and by the consent of all the Society, and by such Admis­sion entitled to a lasting Title to their Fellowships.

How precarious an Office a Chaplain is I shall not judge, but shall repeat in the words of the Learned Judges of the King's-Bench, when Mr. Proast's Cause was before them.

They solemnly declared, That a Chaplain had so good and durable an interest in his Place, as a Cook, and Butler; and that he could not pretend to the same rights as a Fellow. Of this we have frequent Instances in the University; and One more particularly remarkable in New College, of which our Founder was formerly a Member; and from whose Statutes ours are chiefly composed; when Dr. Woodward, by his own Authority, expelled Nine Chaplains with one dash of his Pen; One of them upon submission was restored, but the others appeal'd to the Visitor, who, with a Reprimand, sent them home, owning that he had no Cognizance of the matter, the Power lying in the Warden, and they never were resto­red. All which being premised, I am to shew,

That a Chaplain of All-Souls is amoveable at the plea­sure of the Warden alone.

In order to make this out, I shall suppose, [Page 4] and take it for granted, that the Chaplains for just causes are deprivable, since the Fellows, the principal Members, and the Warden, the Head of it, are so, as the Statutes to that pur­pose evidently evince. For it were absurd and unreasonable, that the inferiour Members should have a more firm and last­ing Interest, Estate, or Tenure in the Foundation, than the principal part, the Head of it; which being granted, I proceed.

Those who in Societies have the sole Power of putting in Members, have always Power likewise to turn them out, un­less the local Statutes do otherwise direct, and limit that Authority. Now the Wardens of All-Souls College have al­ways alone nominated and placed Chaplains in the said Col­lege, neither do the Statutes appoint any other in Conjuncti­on with him, who can either appoint or displace the said Chap­lains.

That the Warden alone puts them in, will not, it is presum­ed, be denied by the Complainant himself; for if it is, he never was Chaplain, and consequently not injured by his Removal, since he was put in by Dr. Jeames, without the concurrence ei­ther of the Officers or the majority of Fellows. Never since the Foundation of the College did either of these lay claim to the placing or displacing a Chaplain, as is most notoriously known beyond the possibility of a Denyal. So that it remains to be shewn.

That in Societies those that have a power of putting in the Members, have likewise a power to put them out; and that the Statutes of All-Souls, in relation to the Chaplains do not otherwise ordain and appoint, and thence it will follow that the Chaplains being put in by the Wardens, and the Statutes not appointing any other person to turn them out, are to be deprived upon just occasion, by the Warden; according to the known Rule of the Canon Law. Cujus est Constituere ejus est Destituere.

To give instances in other Societies of the Universal truth of this general Proposition, is a Task proper for the Pen of a [Page 5] Civilian. It will be sufficient for my purpose, to shew how it would follow in the Fellows themselves, that they being E­lected by the Warden and majority of the Fellows, were by them to be deprived, if there were not a particular Statute that gives such power only to the Warden and Officers.

It is plain in the next place, that the Statutes of All-Souls Col­lege do not at all direct how, or by whom, the Chaplains are to be expelled. There is not a single word about it in the whole body of them; so that it seems plain that the Chaplains must be put out by the Warden alone, who alone puts them in, or else (which is absurd) that they are not at all liable to Ex­pulsion. But come now to his 2d. Objection.

1. Mr.Proast says, the Warden is bound by the Statutede Totali numero Sociorum, &c. Socios Scholares, Sacerdotes ac Ministros Secundum Regulas & Statuta inferius edita & in posterum per nos & successores nostros edenda regere corrigere & gubernare, &c.

2. Or as the Statutede Officio Custodis has it,Scholares Socios Ministros Altaris Capellanos, viz. &c.Juxta Ordination [...]s & Sta­tuta dicti Collegii regere dirigere & gubernare & eodem omnes & singulos juxta erum demerita corrigere punire & castigare.K

3. And lastly, That the Statute Propter quas Causas, &c. the only Statute that treats of the Expulsion of any under a Warden, gives no power to the Warden to expel any with­out the Officers.

1st. I answer, That the Statute Propter quas Causas speaks only of the expelling of Scholars (i. e. Probationers) and Fel­lows, who are in that manner deprivable; not of Chaplains, or any other inferiour Foundation Men, as Clerks, Chori­sters, &c.

2dly. That the other two Statutes are to be interpreted referenda Singula Singulis, i. e. Those under the Warden, con­cerning whom there are any Statutes, are to be governed, corrected, and punished according to those Statutes. Those other, concerning whom there are no Statutes made, either by [Page 6] the Founder, or the succeeding Arch Bps. of Canterbury (and there are none about the expulsion of Chaplains) are left to be go­vern'd, corrected, and punished by the Warden, de jure Com­muni ad ipsius arbitrium & juxta bonam conscientiam; and so has it been and no otherwise since the Foundation of the Col­lege.

The Clerks and Choristors of the College, whose tenure is exactly the same with the Chaplains, as they have ever been put in solely by the Warden so likewise have they been expelled. Instances of which done in the time of my Prede­cessor remain fresh in the memory of many in the College.

All those Statutes that are objected against the Wardens Authority do here directly confirm it. For wherever the sole Power of Government is lodged, there the right of Expulsion is consequently vested; and tho' that power may be subject to restrictions, yet upon the failure of any subsequent limitati­ons, it is left at large, and is to be taken in its full extent and latitude. Now the Government of Fellows, and of Chaplains, is equally placed in the Warden, and by consequence the power of displacing both is in the same hands. The only difference is, that succeeding Statutes qualifie this Authority in one, and do not restrain it in the other, and therefore the War­dens coercive power is limited in respect of the Fellows, but remains entire and unrestrained over Chaplains.

But after all, if it were requisite (as I hope it appears o­therwise) that the Concurrence of the Fellows should be had to the expelling a Chaplain, yet it will appear, that I had e­ven that too, at least ex post facto, as may appear by an Act of the whole Society, Dated the 8th. of Dec. 88. which at least imlpys the ratifying and Confirming my Act of expelling Mr. Proast in a most Solemn and publick Manner.

Now by what hath been said it is hoped that it appears that the Warden has the Sole power of displacing a Chap­lain, it is presumed that he is not Accountable to any for it, [Page 7] since by it he is not Guilty of the least Breach of any part of the Statutes. But since there are so many who have taken upon them to Censure this Action, I am contented to have the Merits of the Cause truly exposed, and shall there­fore hasten to answer his Second general Proposition.

2dly. He urges, that if a Chaplain was removeable by the Warden alone for a just Cause, yet here in this Case there was no good Ground for his Removal.

It will be justly granted, that there are many faults in Members of a Society deserve Expulsion, which yet it freed disengaged Persons are hardly lyable to Censure. First, of those Causes there are none that merit a more severe Punish­ment, than those which tend to the Disturbance, or to the Disgrace of the College. All Founders were careful as for the Peace, so for the Reputation of the Society, and sufficiently knew that a College would so long continue in esteem, as the Members of it were Advanced and Promoted. Hence it is, that in all Colleges the Members are under a Common tye of not disgracing each other, and the neglect of this Rule in Apleford's Case was thought a sufficient Ground for the Expulsion even of a Fellow: How far Mr. Proast hath upon other Grounds deserved his Punishment is reserved for another Opportunity; at present it will be sufficient to shew, that by his own Confession, the disgrace that he put on his College, and upon the first Member of it, was sufficient ground for his Removal.

The Matter of that was in short this: About the middle of March. 88. Dr. Lamphire the History Professor lying ill, there were several of the Gentlemen of the University, who thinking Mr. Dodwell a proper Person to succeed him, went about to Colleges to form an Interest in his behalf. Inso­much that long before the Dr. dyed, Mr. Dodwell was lookt upon as secure of the place.

The Indecency of making so Publick a Canvass for a place [Page 8] not yet Void, made several Gentlemen think it a just Cause to oppose what had been so Ʋnseasonably carried on. And many of Mr. Proast's and my Betters in all Respects, lookt up­on it as a Reflection upon Oxford, that a Gentleman of ano­ther Ʋniversity should come among us, and take away, by much, the best Preferment in our Disposal. It was therefore proposed by them, that some body should be put up in Opposi­tion to Mr. Dodwell; and to be short, they pitcht upon me. I entertain not a thought so vain as to desire the World should think I was set up upon the account of any Great Abilities I pretend to; but the true reason doubtless was, that they imagined I might have interest enough in the University to make some opposition to Mr. Dodwell's Election; as thro' the favour of my Friends it did appear, since in near 300 Votes (with all imaginable foul play) there were but 6 different between us.

I am not so foolishly vain as to pretend to vye with Mr. Dodwell, in any part of Learning, but I hope on the other hand, that for endeavouring to put by a Stranger, I may be ea­sily excused without Censure, since in the Judgment of so many and so great men (whose Character I presume Mr. P. will not easily approach to) I was judged fit to oppose him in his Pretensions.

In short, when Dr. Lamphire was actually dead, I appeared, and acquainted our Society with it, desiring the favour of their Assistance, I particularly spoke to Mr. Proast, who denyed me, However I thought I might reasonably represent to him the indecency as well as the unkindness that would appear in a­ny one of our own College that should oppose himself against the Head of it, especially a Chaplain who had so great a dependance on him. But he was pleased not only to oppose me in his own Person, but got two of the Fellows within our own Walls to joyn with him, and became a publick Soli­citor against me; and not only so, but carry'd his kindness to [Page 9] his Friend, and his contempt of me a little further; he brought great numbers of Out-liers against me, so many, that it can be made out, that for Horse-hire, and other Charges in the Election, he was reimbursed the better part of Twenty Pound. To conclude, the day of Election came, and I lost it by three Votes he had made against me in our own College: I shall not insist on the dishonour of losing the Preferment, nor upon the value of it, though it is, or shortly will be 200l. per An. And consequently a young Man might have reapt great profit from it; and if so, the loss must be considerable.

But let any indifferent Impartial Man judge, whether this Behaviour may be call'd Provocation: He is pleas'd indeed to say for himself, that he thought me unfit for the Place. Had any Oxford Man besides stood, it is very possible that I had been of his mind: But let me be ever so meanly qua­lified, I presume, without the imputation of arrogance, I might in this Case have expected, if not his Vote, yet a more de­cent respect; a more civil, if not a more kind behaviour; and I should reasonably have thought he might have been absent, did it not appear by the whole drift of his Proceed­ings, that he was resolved to shew the utmost of his Skill and Industry to disappoint me.

He is pleased to affirm, that this was no Provocation. But I shall take upon me to shew him, that for one Member of the Society to oppose the Majority, even in the case of a Fellow, had formerly, in the Opinion of no less a Man than one of our Visitors, Arch-Bishop Abbot, been look'd upon as a high Offence, no less than the violation of an Oath; and if this be a great Fault in a Fellow, I may presume I may infer that it is a Provocation in a Chaplain, not indeed a breach of an Oath, for he takes none at his Admission. The Case was this; Before the Cicle for the Proctors was made; the University annually chose Proctors out of any [Page 10] College. The Fellows of All-Souls in the year 1617. ap­peared for a Gentleman of Wadham, but Mr. Duppa (after­wards Bishop of Winton) dissented from the rest, which gave occasion to our then Visitor, to write this following Letter, and the Officers to proceed accordingly, as appears by our Register.

AFter my hearty hearty commendations. After the Care I have of preserving the reputation of your worthy College, whose welfare your Honourable Founder has in especial manner recommended to my trust, I have thought fit, upon some re­ports that are come to my ears, to write this my Letter unto you; whereby I am to advise you, that, as in all other Acts of your College, so especially in that Publick Act of recom­mending one for the Proctorship, you embrace Unity and Concord, and not make your selves a Scorn to the Ʋniversity, by any distractions touching that particular, whereof there is some report, and noise abroad: And therefore, as your Visitor, do admonish you, that upon whom a major part of the Fellows that usually have interest herein, shall concur for this Office, no Man do publickly dissent from this agreement. Because I take it to be against this Clause of your Oath, at your admis­sion to be Fellows. Damna scandala vel prejudicia dicto Collegio nullatenus faciam aut quatenus in me fuerit fieri sustinebo And peradventure, joyn'd with willfulness, and con­tempt, it may be a fault of a higher nature. Thus, without any request unto you for any particular Person, or respect had to any other ends, than of maintaining your publick Credit in the Ʋniversity; and doubting not of your due respect herein, I leave you to the Almighty. From Lambeth the 26 of April. 1617. &c.

And afterwards it appears by the Register, that Mr. Duppa having violated that Clause of his Oath, Damna Scandala, &c. [Page 11] That he should be put out of Commons 3 Months, allowing unto each Month 28 days.

  • R. MOCKETT. Cust.
Dec. Jur.

The use I make of this Letter is this. Every Master of Art has as much a right of Voting for a Proctorship, as a Professorship in the University: A Fellow of the College was judged by that Visitor himself to have committed a great Offence, to have violated his Oath, by disagreeing from the Majority, in favour of another College; he proves further, that joyn'd with willfulness and contempt, it may be a fault of a higher nature, by which we may not unreasonably un­derstand that it would merit expulsion. Here is a Chaplain, a Servant to the House, in our Case, that not only gives his own Vote against the rest of the College, but he seconds his Proceeding with Contempt, and Willfulness; insomuch, that he not only perswades two of the Fellows to joyn with him, but likewise prevail'd upon great numbers in other Colleges to oppose his own.

Now whether this deserves Punishment, or Commenda­tion; whether it be not Willfulness, and Contempt, whe­ther it be Conscience, or Provocation, is the question to be satisfied.

Secondly, the ground upon which he justifies his Practice, is,

That every Man has a right of Voting as he pleases.

If the Gentleman means, That as a Master of Arts he is qualified by the Statutes of the Ʋniversity to dispose of his Vote in all Elections, as he shall think convenient, I readily grant it. But then. by the Authority we have already men­tioned [Page 12] in the Case of Archbishop Abbot, it will not so clearly appear, that when our College shall set up a Member of their own, much more a Governour: One Man; though a Fellow, has so far a right of Voting against the Majority, as to do it with Impunity; it being in Fellows a Viola­tion of a Clause of their Oath, and certainly a great Offence in a Chaplain, when circumstanced with that open Disrespect and Contempt Mr. Proast was pleased to shew in my Case.

Every Counsellor or Advocate has a right of giving his opini­on as he pleases; But if his advice be against the Interest of the College, whereof he is Member, the Justice of the Cause which he espouses will not purge the perjury, nor excuse the contempt. The liberty or indifferency, which either Party hath in themselves is, by those relations they have to the College, restrained and determined. And as man, howsoever a free born Englishman, has a right to an exercise only of such Arts as are consistant with the by-Laws and Customs of the Corporati­on whereof he is a Member, so are the publick Priviledges of every Member of the University contracted by the capacity of the same person, as more immediately a part of a private Society.

But then,

3dly. Let him shew, if he can, that he has such a Right of Voting as may be called an Obligation of Voting. For unless he makes that out, he cannot have much to say for his Behaviour; he cannot easily justifie his rude and undecent opposition to his own College, and to the Head of it more especially. It is to be feared, that in Arch Bishop Abbot's time had Mr. Duppa pleaded that in his opinion the Candidate of Wadham was not a proper Person for the Office, or that every one has a Right of Voting at discretion, tho' against his own Society; these Arguments would not have deferred his pu­nishment, or have been lookt upon as a sufficient excuse. Neither can I think, that amongst unprejudiced Men, Mr. [Page 13] Proast's exposing me as an unfit Man, can justifie his appear­ance against me. And to shew you that it is not his Opi­nion, that he is bound in Conscience to be at the Convoca­tion-House, and discharge himself of his Vote some way or other, without being tedious, I shall take the liberty to cite this Famous Instance.

Upon the death of Sir Leoline Jenkins, Mr. Clark, a Fellow of All-Souls, appeared to be Burgess of that University in his place. The College heartily espoused his Interest, and finally, the University very unanimously chose him as a person very well qualified for their service. Mr. Proast, it seems, could not bring himself to entertain good thoughts of the Gentleman (who would be a great credit to any Society) neither could he be wrought upon to joyn with his own house in his Election, but chose rather to Absent himself. By which proceeding, be pleased to observe, that Mr. Proast's practice shews that he does not un­derstand a Right of voteing to be an Obligation of voteing, that if he thinks a man unfit he thinks himself obliged to give voice against him. And besides, you have a farther prospect of the Temper of the man, by his having before refused to joyn with the House in favour of the greatest Ornament of it. It appears that he does not think there lies any obligation upon him to be concluded by the sense of the Society, and has no notion of the honour of the College, or any authority he lies under to maintain it. But we come in the third place to exa­mine,

3dly. Whether he was turned out by the Warden purely for voting against him, without any previous offence, &c.

When I lost the Preferment I appear'd for, I am not con­scious that the ill usage of some, and the unkindness of others, provoked me to the least degree of heat or Passion. I do solemnly protest, that I had not any thought or intention of taking a­ny kind of notice of Mr. Proast's Behaviour, till I was solicit­ed by some of the Officers, and others the most considerable [Page 14] men of the College, to this effect. They complained to me that Mr. Proast had long been a Burthen to the Society, by his making so many and so frequent quarrels and divisions in the House. That in all our private Elections he constantly made Parties, to the great dishonour and disquiet of the Col­lege. That he fix'd ill Characters upon any body at his dis­cretion, and upon account of his troublesome and unquiet hu­mour had frequently deserved a removal; that I ought not now so much to neglect the peace and good of the Society, as to let this injury, however in appearance private, yet in the effects of it publick, go altogether unpunished. For that should I not upon this affront displace him, his Insolence, which before was insupportable, would encrease so far, as to put the Fellows out of hopes of having any redress for the future; for that he had formerly lookt upon himself as above restraint, and independent of any power whatever. I was very desirous to resist the Importunity of the Society, but those whom I conceived to understand best, and promote most the Interest of the House, insisting upon it, I protest solemnly, without any inclination to revenge upon my own particular, I pro­nounced him no Chaplain, giving him fourteen days to remove.

This is the matter of Fact, and by it I presume it will ap­pear, that I did not expel him upon my own head; that I did it at the instance of the Fellows, not so much for Voting only a­gainst me, as for his former rude behaviour to them. This, I confess, that had he not so openly opposed the College in my case, it is not probable that the Fellows would at that time have made their complaint; but this I declare on the other side, that had they brought this accusation at any time against him, (since I my self have formerly been a Witness of the truth of it) I should have thought my self obliged to do them ju­stice.

After 14 days were given, it was the expectation of most People (how reasonable a one, I am not a proper Judge) that [Page 15] the Gentleman would have made some sort of submission, by which he might have reconciled himself to the Society, but instead of that, he took another sort of Course, that of disturbing me with rude Letters; upon which, I publickly declar'd, that the next I received, without opening it, I would that moment shorten his stay, by strikeing his Name out of the Book, as upon having another Letter left for me at my Lodgings, I soon afterwards did.

This is the truth of the whole matter, and I am in hopes it does not deserve so severe a Censure as many have thought fit to pass upon it, without truly knowing the Case, or un­derstanding any thing of our Statutes. But I shall not won­der, that those Persons who were for having Mr. Dodwell come in by any means, fair or foul, take upon them to ju­stifie the insolence of those who supported his interest, with­out weighing their Obligations to the contrary.

Were the turbulent and restless temper of the Gentleman as well understood at Lambeth, as it is known in every part of the Ʋniversity of Oxford, I perswade my self, that instead of his having any Countenance from a Visitor, I should ra­ther receive his Commendation, for removing the disturber of that Peace, that is so earnestly recommended to his Care by our Beneficent Founder. I would not, by any means, lay any thing to the Gentleman's Charge, but what is litterally true, and therefore have, in speaking of him, purposely avoid­ed all disrespectful Language; but being call'd upon to vin­dicate my self, I must say that he is absolutely Unfit for a College. I am not singular in this Opinion. Dr. Barlow the Bishop of Lincoln having removed him from Queens-College for the same reason.

3. As to the third Point, which is a cavil against Mr. Finches Title to the Wardenship, it might, with submission, be prov'd to be false, if it was not a more easie, and more proper task to prove it immaterial.

[Page 16] 1. For it it was granted, that he was only Warden de facto, and not de jure; yet since he was then admitted, and own'd as such by the whole College, and more especially by the Visitor himself, and by Mr. Proast, in the superscription of his Letter, &c. and had then, if not a lawful, yet an uncontested Title: It must follow, that he was at least in Possessione Ju­risdictionis, and that all Acts of discipline for the Govern­ment of the College were Valid, and Authoritative.

2. If the Consequence should be allow'd, that all the Acts of a Warden, who had no good Title, were void; then all the Leases made in his Wardenship would be invalidated, all Fines must de novo be paid, and the common security of those that transacted with a College would be overthrown: For it is impossible to suppose, that a Warden de facto should be admitted to have Power of granting Leases, and not of ex­ercising Acts of Discipline, and Jurisdiction; since the one Power is of more immediate and pressing necessity, for support of the College, than the other; and consequently the one is often lodg'd in Inferiour Officers, the other is reserv'd to the Warden alone.

As to the Title it self, how far the King's Mandat in Re licitâ can dispence with the Ceremonies of Election enjoyn'd by the local Statutes of a College, The Warden takes not upon him to determine; he is inform'd however, that this Point was admitted, and judicially settled in Westminster-Hall, in the beginning of the Reign of Charles the Second. It is improper for him to State the bounds and extent of the Dispencing Power; and no sign of Modesty in Mr. Proast, without any great pretensions to Law, at one blow to disannul and overthrow it. But this the Warden knows, that however unwarrantable the exercise of his dispensing power may be, the use of a Mandat could not be so prejudi­cial to the Rights of the College, nor so derogatory to the pow­er of a Visitor; as Mr Proast's Appeal from the Dean and [Page 17] Chapter of Canterbury (who sede vacante were the proper Visi­tors) to the Privy Council, (who had no cognisance of the cause at all.

As to the Mandat it self, it should be known, that it was obtained by the Warden at the request of the best Members of the Society: That it was by them then esteemed a secu­rity to the College; and was used in other Societies at that time, as the best method to hinder the incroachments of men of ill Principles. That his Government of the College in the late Reigns was such as was suitable to this design, and was so far from being unacceptable to the best part of the Socie­ty, that Mr. Proast will gain very few or none of the Mem­bers of that College, that will concur in these unwarrantable exceptions to the Wardens title.

Mr. Proast hath put himself under a double capacity of an Informer, and an Appellant. As to his Information, it is humbly presumed, that if any weight at all be laid on it, the Most Reverend the Visitor will give the Warden time to shew the weakness of those Suggestions; before his Grace gives himself the trouble of any proceedings upon it. As to the Appeal, it is hoped that upon the reasons abovementioned, it will receive no other favour from our Most Reverend Visitor, than it hath hitherto found from the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, from the Privy Council, and in Westminster-Hall; especially since his case hath been so often considered; and since after so long a circuit of process, after so great and frequent troubles, and expences; it will probably seem reasonable to his Grace in his Wisdom to excuse the Warden, and Fellows of that Society, from any new charge, and trouble upon this occasion.

L. W. Finch.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.