SSF?2^»^; pAfrtffa, fchbwOTarai 'M$fl£ ifcfcT ^ A /5 * ££**#mA/v OT«j' k\b " ;..,w ct;*:? J • M& 5k * \*$^Mt r - R ft « a * I a DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Treasure %oom IA/* - CAP 0~^-\~-^ a.' A^Aft** ^V A '"' - - -> "7 • O - - — . " 3 a s » * * « :^^S^:#! * a -^ * - kkTaUIkh i .*> - ~ ^ , W/vv^ i^WCWWAv^' i A ■ «£ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Duke University Libraries http://www.archive.org/details/examinationofcalOObrow AN EXAMINATION OF THE CALUMNIES WHICH HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED AS REASONS FOR THE OPPOSITION To Dr. Browne's Election into the Office of Vice-chancellor, which took place on the Ath of November, 1809: WITH SOME OBSER VA TIONS Upon other Circumstances which have followed, and with which that Opposition appears to have a close Connection. Hy the Master of Christ College. Falsus honor juvat et mendax iufamia terret Quern nisi Mendosum et Mendacem? HOR. CAMBRIDGE: Printed by W. Metcalfe, All Saints' Passage, For the Author; And Sold by J. Gee, Market-Hill, For the Benefit of ADDENBROOKEs HOSPITAL. 1810, TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE. T HE Rev. Dr. Browne, Master of Christ College, was much surprized, a few weeks since, on being informed by the Head of another House that certain Papers in manu* script had been privately sent to him, and, as he understood, to all the Masters of Col- leges, by a person whose name he conceived himself not at liberty to mention, which were evidently intended to prejudice Dr. B.'s cha- racter. This information would necessarily have produced in the mind of Dr. B. the greatest anxiety as well as surprize had not the same person not only kindly communi- cated the Papers themselves, but also distinctly stated to him the charge intended to be de- duced from them, and the reasonings by which that charge was meant to be supported. B Futile as this charge appeared to Dr. B. he thought it incumbent upon him to draw up a short reply, and address it to the Heads of Colleges only : but having afterwards disco- vered that partial and garbled extracts from these Papers had got into the hands of other Members of the Senate, lie has thought it necessary to submit the Papers themselves to the University at large, together with his answer to the charge they are intended to convey: and also to subjoin a few reflections which are naturally suggested by a general view of the accusation, and by other circum- stances which have an evident connection with it. CIRCULATED PAPERS Copy of a Bene decessit in the hand writing of Dr. Brow?ie. Christ Coll. Camb. This is to certify that Alexander Brown was admitted a Pensioner of this College on the 27th of December, 1797; that he hath kept the major part of six several Terms; hath behaved himself studiously and regularly; and hath our consent to remove to any other College. "Witness our hands, J. BARKER, Master. THOs. BROWNE, Tutor. J. DONCASTER. Mem. Brown ceased to be a Member of Christ College on Sept. 18th, 1800. Copy of Office Copy of Mr, Browne's Affidavit in Chancery. Thomas Browne, Bachelor in Divinity, Fellow and Tutor of Christ college in the University of Cambridge, maketli oath and saith, that about the month of March 1800, he was informed by Sir Edw> Astley, Bart, that it was his particular wish that his son Rich. John Astley, then a Member of Pembroke Hall in the said University, should con- tinue his residence in the said University after he had obtained his first, or B. A. degree, which he might be a candidate for at the ensuing Christ- mas; but that he had understood from the said R. J. Astley that it was not the practice of their Society to permit Graduates to retain their cham- bers: that the said Sir E. Astley, Bart, therefore wished this deponent to wait upon the proper Officer of Pembroke Hall to enquire whether the College would not dispense with such their general rule in this particular instance, and if not, that he, this deponent, would remove him, the said R. J, Astley, to some other college where he might be accommodated. And this deponent farther saith, that he did accordingly wait upon Mr. Parke, Tutor of Pembroke Hall, and communicated to him Sir E. Astley's wishes, who confirmed to this deponent the rule of their college, but added that fchepe was no objection to giving him leave to remove to any other college, and that Mr. Parke did deliver to this deponent such licence in a very common and general form, such as is given and received by Christ college, and this deponent be- lieves by everv college in the University: and this deponent farther saith, that having been for up- wards of fifteen } r ears intimately acquainted with the Rev. Wm. Atkinson, Fellow and Tutor of Catharine Hall in the said University, having had indisputable proofs of his superior abilities, and entertaining the highest opinion of his diligence in the discharge of his duty as Tutor, he, this de- ponent, recommended the said R. J. Astley to the tuition of the said Wm. Atkinson; and that the said R. J. Astley did admit himself at Catharine Hall under the said Wm. Atkinson accordingly. And this deponent farther saith, that after the said R. J. Astley had been some days at Catharine Hall, he called upon and informed this deponent that Mr. Procter, the Master of the college, had sent for him and told him that he did not approve of the form of the Bene decessit which he brought from Pembroke Hall, and that unless he brought another in a form which he should approve of he would not permit him to remain at Catharine Hall: that this deponent, in consequence of such information, called upon Mr. Parke, Tutor of Pembroke Hall, and asked him whether he had any thing to alledge against tlje said R. J. Astley, 6 to' which he replied in the negative: that some time afterwards this deponent "was Informed by the said R. J. Astley, that the said Mr. Procter, Master of Catharine Hall, had forcibly excluded him from the said college without bringing any charge against him, or even convening him before the Society; and this deponent, conceiving the conduct of the said Mr. Procter towards the said R. J. Astley to be extremely injurious and oppress sive, and having reason to suspect, from some expressions which the said R. J. Astley assured him were dropt by the said Mr. Proctor, such as that " he would take care the said Wm. Atkinson should never have another pupil," or to that effect, that the pretence of informality in the Bene de^ cessit was only a cover for his designs against the said Wm. Atkinson; and that the said R.J. Astley was made a sacrifice to some private and personal misunderstanding of the said Mr, Procter with the said Wm. Atkinson, determined him to bring the matter before the Lord High Chancellor as Visitor of Catharine Hall, and had actually applied to Counsel and prepared affidavits for that purpose, but the said Wm, Atkinson dissuaded this deponent from proceeding in his intended appeal, observing that from the intimacy of the said Wm. Atkinson with this deponent, it might be thought that the said Wm. Atkinson had advised and abetted this depo- nent in bringing the matter before the public; and / that influenced by the advice and persuasion of the said Wm. Atkinson, this deponent desisted from the prosecution of the said Appeal. THOMAS BROWNE. Sworn at the Public Office this 13th day of July, 1801, Before me JOHN WILMOT. Copy of Office Copy of Astley s affidavit. Richard John Astley, of Melton Cunstable in the county of Norfolk, gentleman, maketh oath and saith, that about the beginning of March 1800, he applied to William Atkinson, the Tutor of Catharine JFiall in the University of Cambridge, to be admitted of that Society; that the said William Atkinson told him he could not admit him unless he brought from the Master and Fellows of Pem- broke Hall (of which college he then was) a leave or licence for that purpose (commonly called a Bene decessit) agreeable to the University Statutes: that, therefore, he procured a Bene decessit from the said Master and Fellows of Pembroke Hall and delivered it to the said Wm. Atkinson, who thereupon admitted him of Catharine Hall. And this deponent farther saith, after lie had been at considerable expence in fitting up rooms, and had 8 been in college some days, Mr. Procter, the Master of the college, sent for him, and told him that he did not approve of his admission, and that he would not permit him to remain there unless he brought another Bene decessit in a form which he should approve: that conceiving it his duty as a Member of the College to attend in I Ia.Il and Chapel he did so according!}-, but he never used any violence or ill language to any person in going into the Hall or Chapel as aforesaid: that one evening, as this deponent was going into the Chapel, he met the said Master at the steps, who, in the hearing of this deponent, told the porter to shut, the door, and not. to suffer this deponent to go into Chapel; and this deponent, without at- tempting to go into the Chapel, bowed and re- tired. And this deponent farther saith, that the said Wm. Atkinson never advised or encouraged him to resist the lawful authority of the said Master of Catharine Hall, but, on the contrary, advised this deponent to attend whenever he sent for him, and to take care not to say any thing that could possibly be considered as disrespectful 3 that he, in fact, never either said or did any thing disrespectful to the said Master of Catharine Hall: that in a conference he, this deponent, had with the said Master, whilst he, this deponent, was at Catharine Hall, the said Master told this deponent that he had nothing to alledge against him, nor 9 did he, the said Master, hear that the Master and Fellows of Pembroke Hall had any thing to alledge against him : and this deponent farther saith, that the said Master, in one of the said conferences, observed to this deponent that the informality of the said Bene decessit was not the only objection to this deponent's admission, in as much as he, the said Master, was determined never to suffer another pupil to be admitted of the said college under the said Wra. Atkinson, or the said Master made use of words to that effect: and this depo- nent farther saith, that having been forcibly ex- cluded from the said college, by the said Master putting, or causing to be put, a padlock upon the door of his chamber, he, this deponent, offered himself to be again admitted of Pembroke Hall, and was there re-admitted accordingly. RICHARD JOHN ASTLEY. Sworn at the Public Office in South- ampton Buildings, this 24th day of July, 1801, before E. LEEDS. <27 July, 1801, Ex d . R. Wilson, P. S. C 10 Copy of Office Copy of affidavit of the Rev. Ben- jamin Parke, A. 31. University Proctor, Fellozc and Senior Tutor of Pembroke Hail, In the Matter of Catharine Hall, Cambridge, Ex parte Dr. Procter and Another. The Rev. Benjamin Parke, M. A. Junior Proctor of the University of Cambridge, Fellow and Senior Tutor of Pembroke Hall in the said University, maketh oath and saith, that on or about the 29th day of May, 1800, the Rev. Thos. Browne, B. D. Fellow and Tutor of Christ college in the said University, called upon this deponent, and that a conversation then passed between this deponent and the said Thos. Browne relative to the conduct of Rich. John Astley, who had been a Student of Pembroke Hall aforesaid; and this deponent also saith, that he then acquainted the said Thomas Browne with the conduct and behaviour of the said Rich. J. Astley at Pembroke Hall; and that the said R. J. Astley had caused this deponent much trouble by his neglect of the rules and inattention to the discipline of Pembroke Hall : and this depo- nent farther saith, that he at the same time men- tioned to the said Thomas Browne a particular instance of the disorderly behaviour of the said R. J. Astley in the said Hall or College; that he, this deponent, had been under the necessity of 11 leaving his bed about 3 o'clock one morning to quell a disturbance which he, the said R. J. Astley and another young man of Pembroke Hall, were making in the College court: and this deponent also saith, that the licence or certificate given to the said R. J. Astley, previous to or at the time of his leaving Pembroke Hall with an intention, as this deponent believes, of procuring himself to be admitted a Student of Catharine Hall, in the said University of Cambridge, was a Liceat migrare, and not a Bene decessit; and that, he believes, it was not considered by the Master and Fellows of Pembroke Hall as a Bene decessit; and that they had refused to sign a Bene decessit for the said R. J. Astley. BENJAMIN PARKE. Sworn at the Town of Cambridge, in the County of Cambridge, the 31st day of October, 1801, before me JOHN FINCH, A Master extraordinary in Chancery. 12 Copy of a Note which Dr. PROCTER received from Dr. Seale in October, 1801. MEMORANDUM. John Barlow Seale, D. D. the Senior Fellow of Christ College, was present at a meeting in the Common Room, at which the name of Astley was offered for admission by Mr. Browne, one of the Junior Fellows. It was stated that he (Astley) had a paper, entitled a " Liceat migrare," from Pembroke Hall. This Liceat migrare was deemed insufficient ground for admitting the said Astley, and the admission was negatived by Dr. John Barker, Master, as well as by the Senior Fellow aforesaid. It was then known and confessed that objections had also been made to his admission at Catharine Hall by the Master of that College, •. Christ College, VJth October, 18.01. 13 Copy of Office Copy of affidavit of the Rev. Dr. Turner, in the matter of Catharine Hall, Cambridge. Joseph Turner, D.D. Master of Pembroke Hall, in the University of Cambridge, and Dean of Nor- wich, maketh oath and saith, that on or about the 19th day of March, 1800, an application was made by Richard John Astley, then a Student of Pem- broke Hall aforesaid, through the Rev. Benjamin Parke, his Tutor, to this deponent, as the Master of Pembroke Hall, and to the Fellows of the same Hall, or some of them, for a Bene decessit to be granted to the said R. J. Astley. And this deponent saith, that he, this deponent, and the Fellows of Pembroke Hall, as he believes, to whom such application was made, being dis- satisfied with the conduct and behaviour of the said R. J. Astley whilst he had been a Student there, did not think it proper that a Bene decessit should be granted to him the said R. J. Astley, but that he should have a Liceat migrare, or per- mission to remove from Pembroke Hall to Catha- rine Flail, in the same University; and which Liceat migrare, or permission to remove, was ac- cordingly signed by this deponent and three of the said Fellows of Pembroke Hall aforesaid, as this deponent believes, and delivered to the said Benjamin Parke. 14 And this deponent also saith, he recollects that soon after the time of granting such Liceat migrare to the said R.J. Astley, the Rev. Joseph Procter, then and now Master of Catharine Hall in the said University, called upon this deponent to make enquiry respecting the behaviour of R.J. Astley during his residence at Pembroke Hall, when this deponent informed the said J. Procter that he, this deponent, (as Master of Pembroke Hall) and the Fellows of that Society, had refused to grant a Bene decessit to the said R. J. Astley on account of his misconduct. And this deponent farther saith, that after the said R. J. Astley had left Pembroke Hall with such Liceat migrare as aforesaid, and had been rejected from Catharine Hall, or his admission into that Hall had been objected to on that ac- count, he, the said R. J. Astley, at an interview which he had with this deponent on the subject of his re-admission into Pembroke Hall, promised this deponent that he would be more attentive to the rules and discipline of that Hall or College than he had formerly been, for otherwise, this de- ponent saith, that he should not have consented to the re-admission of the said R. J. Astley into Pembroke Hall. And this deponent lastly saith, that he should not think himself (as Master of Pembroke Hall) justified, or acting properly, in siuTering any person 15 to be admitted of that Hall on producing merely a Liceat migrare, without causing enquiry to be made of the Master or Tutor of the College or Hall granting such Liceat migrare, and being satisfied that the person to whom it was granted had conducted himself regularly during the time he was a Member of such College or Hall. JOSEPH TURNER. Sworn, by the said J. Turner, at the Town of Cambridge, in the County of Cambridge, the 3rd day of November, 1801, before me JOHN FINCH, A Master extraordinary in Chancery. 1th Nov. 1801. Copy of Office Copy of farther Affidavit of Mr. Browne. Thomas Browne, Clerk, Bachelor in Divinity, Fellow and Tutor of Christ college in the Univer- sity of Cambridge, maketh oath and saith, that about the 20th day of May, 1800, he proposed, at a meeting of the Master and resident Fellows of Christ college, to admit Richard John Astley, in this deponent's former affidavit named, a Member of the said college, under a permission from the 16 Master and Fellows of Pembroke Hall to remove from that Society. And this deponent saith, that there was no exception taken to the form of such permission by any person present, nor any objec- tion made to the admission of the said R. J. Astley at Christ college, except by one of the Fellows, who alledged that, as he understood that the said R. J. Astley had been refused admission by the Master of Catharine Hall, it would be a reflection upon the said Master to admit him of Christ col- lege, and that he should, therefore, oppose his being admitted; and this deponent saith, it was such op- position solely (there not being a majority of the whole Society present) which, as this deponent understood and believes, prevented the admission of the said R. J. Astley at Christ college. And this deponent farther saith, that he has been Tutor of Christ college eight years, during which time many Bene decessits, or Licences to remove, have both been given and received by him ; and that he never heard of there being two kinds of Licences known by different names and used for different purposes. And this deponent farther saith, that some time after the expulsion of the said R. J. Astley from Catharine Hall, this deponent called upon the Rev. Benjamin Parke, Tutor of Pembroke Hall, to request a second Bene decessit for R. J. Astley in general terms, the former being confined to Catharine Hall, and 17 that the said B. Parke did upon that occasion, for the first time, inform this deponent that the con- duct of the said R. J. Astley, at Pembroke Hall, had not been altogether regular or proper, and stated to this deponent a particular act of irregu- larity committed by him during the first year of his residence in the University. And this deponent farther saith, that upon his mentioning the above circumstance to the said R. J. Astley, and expressing his disapprobation of his having concealed such circumstance from this deponent, the said R. J. Astley expressed great surprize at the conduct of the said B. Parke in that respect, acknowledging that the said circum- stance was true, but assured this deponent that on the morning following the said act of irregularity he, the said R. J. Astley , had waited upon the said B. Parke and apologized for his improper beha- viour, and that the said B. Parke had thereupon declared himself perfectly satisfied with the apo- logy, and assured him that the said irregularity should never be mentioned by him to the prejudice of the said R. J. Astley. THOMAS BROWNE. Sworn at the Town of Cambridge, in the County of Camb. the 20th day of Nov, 1801, before me JOHN FINCH, A Master extraordinary in Chancery., D THE DEFENCE. 00 long ago as in the beginning of March, 1800, Dr. Browne was applied to by Sir E. Astley, Bart, to remove Mr. R. J. Astley from Pembroke Hall to some other College, where he might be per- mitted to reside after he had graduated; and, in consequence, he applied for, and obtained a Per- mission to remove from Pembroke Hall to Catha- rine Hall, worded in a similar way to many other Permissions which he had witnessed to have been given and received, without the least observation being made upon them, at Christ college. On this permission being produced to the Tutor of Catharine Hall, by Mr. Astley, he was admitted there according to the invariable practice of that Society, which was to leave the admissions to the Tutor without any interference of the Master or Society. As soon however as the admission of Mr. Astley came to the knowledge of Dr. Procter, the Master of Catharine Hall, he protested against it, on the sole ground, as he expressly said, of the form of the Permission which Mr. Astley had brought from Pembroke Hall. Upon this account, after the ap- 20 peal from Catharine Hall came before the Lord Chancellor, Dr. Browne was requested by the Tutor of Catharine Hall to testify that the form of the Permission, under which he had admitted Mr. Astley at Catharine Hall, was one very com- monly given and received in the University. Pr. Browne complied with this request, and in confirmation of his testimony, not less, to the best of his recollection, than twenty Permissions, in the very form of that objected to, were pro- duced, all of which had been acted upon. These were carried to Town by the Tutor of Catharine Hall, from whom Dr. Browne understands that, being considered after the decision of the appeal as of no farther use, they were not preserved, otherwise they would have decidedly proved that the form was far from being an uncommon one. Luckily, however, for Dr. Browne he has been able to procure, since these papers have been sent to hin^ Permissions, in the form above mentioned, from seven different Colleges (on which Dr. Browne will have to comment hereafter) and he does not doubt but every College, in which documents of Admission are preserved, could furnish him with more instances of them, Mr. Astley having retired into the country, in consequence of his having been ejected from Catharine Hall by Dr. Proctor, a correspondence took place between Sir E. Astley and Dr. Browne, 21 in which Sir E. Astley expressed a wish that Mr. Astley might be admitted at Christ college: Dr. Browne, therefore, having obtained a second Permission for Mr. Astley tq remove from Pem- broke Hall to any other College, proposed him on the 20th of May, 1800, fop admission at Christ's, with the express consent and approbation of Dr. Barker, the then Master, But the admission was objected to by one of the Fellows, which objection, there not being a majority of Fellows in College, was sufficient to hinder his admission, and was the sole cause of its being hindered. In consequence of this Mr. Astley returned to Pembroke Hall and was re-admitted there. Somewhat more than a year after this, the Tutor of Catharine Hall informed Dr. Browne that the circumstance of Mr. Astley's rejection at Christ's was urged as a confirmation of the pro^ priety of Dr. Procter's having excluded Mr. Astley from Catharine Hall, and consequently of the im- propriety of the Tutor's admitting him under the above mentioned form of Permission; as it was contended that his rejection at both Colleges was owing to the same circumstance; i. e. the insuffi- ciency of his Licence to remove, — On this occasion Dr. Browne, in order to shew that the reason as-? signed was without foundation, made his further affidavit: in which he also added that, in the course of his experience as Tutor, during which 22 .— — time, many Bene decessits, or licences to remove, Lad been given and received by him, be had never heard of there being two kinds of licences to remove knozvn by different names and used for different purposes. Tbese, as he is informed, are the words upon which the accusation of wilful and corrupt perjury are built : and, in proof of this most serious charge, a Copy of a Bene discessit, in a different form from a mere Licet migrare, is produced and said to have been written and signed by Dr. Browne himself, and given prior to the date of his affidavit. Now, Dr. Browne presumes that, had every other member of the University, with- out exception, made oath that there was one form of licence known by the name of Licet migrare, and another by that of Bene discessit, and that these two distinct forms were always given and used for different purposes, it would have been no proof that what Dr. Browne has said is not strictly true, much less would it have proved that he has been guilty of zvilful and corrupt perjury, it would have been no more than a proof that he was igno- rant of such a distinction. But he fuljy believes that no idea of such a distinction existed generally, if at all, in the University, and the foundations of this belief are not at all shaken by any thing con- tained in the Papers to which these observations refer. The persons by whom these Papers have been privately circulated, evidently wish it to be 23 supposed that the above assertion in his affidavit is at variance with the terms of the Licence to which he was a party.' — But the meaning of Dr. Browne's declaration ought not to be taken abstractedly, but with a reference to the particular purpose for which it was made, namely, in oppo- sition to the idea, and in condemnation of the fact said to be founded upon it, that the instrument called a Licet migrare was insufficient to procure, for a person wishing to change his College, ad- mission into another; in other words, that, so far as removal from one College to another was con- cerned, a Bene discessit and a Licet migrare were to all intents and purposes the same. Dr. Browne was perfectly aware that the files of his own Col- lege (and probably those of every other College in the University) furnish a proof that there is a great variety in the forms of these Licences, or, to speak more properly, that there is no fixed or pre- scribed form at all. But he certainly never knew (nor, from his own experience, was it possible for him to suppose) that differently zvorded Permissions were used for different Purposes ; for in every in- stance, without exception, that ever came under his cognizance, the person bringing a permission was, without hesitation, admitted, in whatever form of words the Permission was couched. In- deed the supposition that different forms of licences were used for different Purposes, appears to be quite irreconcilable, either with fair Reasoning, with Facts, or even with the Practice of those very persons who wish to have it understood that the idea of such a distinction was then prevalent in the University. First let us examine the Reason of the thing: upon a supposition that two dif- ferent kinds of licences existed, one called a Licet migrare, and the other a Bene discessit, for what purpose could th&Jirst of these be granted? There can be no doubt what purpose it was expected to serve by the person applying for it; it was to procure him Admission at another College, and as the Persons granting it must know that it was asked for that purpose, if they knew at the same time that it would not answer that purpose, their giving it would be a most insidious and unworthy act. Let us now see how the Fact stands. These Permissions, couched in general terms, and stated to be appropriately called Licet migrares, have been proved by Dr. Browne to have procured ad- missions into other Colleges for the persons re- ceiving them, in a variety of instances, whilst, on the other hand, except in the case in question, there is not a single case produced in which a person has been refused admission merely on ac- count of the insufficiency of such a licence as they call a Licet migrare: indeed it is quite obvious, that if licences in this form had once been rejected they would never again have been applied for, or 25 accepted if offered. Lastly, with respect to the Practice of the Persons themselves who are con- cerned in these Papers, Dr. Browne has to observe that they have been Parties to Permissions to re- move to other Colleges, which were in the form they term a Licet migrare, which were conferred on Men of irreproachable conduct, and which were accepted, without hesitation> by Men ac- knowledged to be peculiarly versed in the Laws and Customs of this University. In addition to what Dr. Browne has said upon the distinction attempted to be set up between a Bene discessit and a Licet migrare (and which he believes does ?wzc in a great degree exist, in consequence of the discussion produced by the cause in which these Affidavits were made) he cannot pass by the per- missions from the seven Colleges above alluded to without observing, that the four subjoined Per- missions *, which are in the form called Licet Magd. Coll Camb. Nov. 4, 170'S. * It appears by the College Register that Richard Hey was admitted a Member of this College on the 23d day of June 176*4; he hath continued a Member of the same to the present time, and has now liberty to leave the College. Witness our hands G. SANDBY, Master. Wm. PURKIS, President. Endorsed K ,. •. hy Dr;EWst, rti- * i Bene discessit. dv Dr. Elusion ) Bene't Coll. Camb. 24 Dec. 1786. John Theodosius Langhorne of the county of Somerset was admitted into this College on the 5th of July 17S6. He has re- sided from the 13th of October to the 24th of Dec. 1786, and has our leave to remove to any other College. W. COLMAN. E. BRADFORD, Tutor. P. DOUGLAS, Prelector. Endorsed ? „ ,. ., by Dr. Elliston j Bene discess.t. Pembroke Hall This is to certify that John Haggit was admitted a Pensioner on the thirtieth day of December 1786 and that he has our leave to remove to Sidney College. J. TURNER, Master. B. PARKE, Tutor. JN°. NORCROSS, Lecturer. Pemb. Hall, Nov. 3, 1787. Endorsed by Dr. Elliston > Bene discessit. 27 therefore could it even be shewn that this distinc- tion was then generally understood to exist, Dr. Browne would have no reason to be ashamed that a circumstance was unknown to kirn, of which it is evident that Dr. Elliston, a Man of the first abi- lities and character, and peculiarly attentive to the forms and customs of the University, was ig- norant. Dr. Browne does not suppose that this point stands in need of any further illustration, yet he cannot resist the claim which the opinion of Mr. Borlase the late Rcgistrary has for insertion— He was a Man whose character for candour and in- formation needs no comment — He answered the question of what difference he conceived there was between a Licence speaking to character and one silent upon it, that " he thought them of equal value for the purpose of procuring admission, un- less there was an intention to deceive" — for the particular history of this opinion Dr. Browne is Jrindly permitted to refer the Members of the Senate to the Rev. Mr. Veasey, B. D. the Senior Tutor of Peterhouse. Having now assigned the reasons of his making these Affidavits, and given his explanation of the passages objected to, Dr. Browne will proceed to examine the Contents of the other Papers which accompany them: as he is informed that they are intended to prove that there is an Incorrectness in bis Facts, 28 On the Master of Pembroke's Affidavit Dr. B. will merely observe that, as he only states what he should think proper for a Master of a College to do, and what he himself would do in a case similar to that of Mr. Astle}-; his testimony does not at all bear upon, much less impeach the veracity of that part of Dr. B.'s affidavit which relates to the pretended distinction between licet migrare and bene discessit: and Dr. B. will not believe that a Man so highly respectable, and so upright as Dr. Turner, would give any consent or sanction to the use that has been made of his Affidavit, or that he would be any way concerned in the clan-' destine and unfair attack that has been made upon Dr. B.'s character. With respect to Mr. Parke's Affidavit, it does not in reality contradict any thing contained in either of those made by Dr. B. however it may do so in appearance.' — 'An apparent Contradiction arises from the circumstance that Mr. Parke's Affi- davit refers to one interview only between him and Dr. B., whereas, in order to have given a just idea of the transaction, it ought to have referred to three. As there were two Bene discessits (for on the authorities of Dr. Elliston and Mr. Borlase he now takes the liberty to call them so) procured by Dr. Browne for Mr. Astley from Pembroke Hall, there must have been at least tzvo interviews be- 29 hveen Mr. Parke and Dr. Browne, at which these different Bene discessits were applied for; both of which, as appears from these Papers, must have been granted before the tzventy-ninlh of May, for Mr. Astley was proposed for admission at Christ's on the tzventieth of May, and necessarily on the SECOND Bene discessit, for the FIRST was addressed to Catharine Hall exclusively: now Dr. Browne solemnly declares that he never had any conver- sation with Mr. Parke relating to Mr. Astley's business (as indeed it is improbable that he should) subsequently to the time of his procuring the second Bene discessit, either at Pembroke Hall or elsewhere, — whereas Mr. Parke has sworn that his communication of Mr. Astley's irregularity took place on or about the 29th of May. Dr. Browne mentions this, not for the sake of cavilling at an error in date,- which he is persuaded was un- intentional, or for the purpose of making any unfavourable remark upon Mr. Parke's having omitted all mention of the interviews which pre- viously took place between him and Dr. Browne upon this subject; but as affording him an oppor- tunity of contrasting the Spirit by which he is actuated, with the conduct observed towards him by the clandestine Circulators of these Papers. Dr. B. cannot conceive why Mr. Astley's affi- davit is brought forward upon this occasion, as it 30 does not appear to him to refer to any matter con- tained in either of Dr. B.'s. It has, however, ascertained the time in which the application was made for a Bene discessit from Pembroke Hall, and which is also confirmed by Dr. Turner to have been on the 19th of March, 1800: whereas Mr. Parke speaks of a transaction that took place on or about the 29th of May. Dr. Seale's Note alone now remains to be con? sidered, and Dr. B. feels a kind of humiliation in being called upon by his Enemies to plead to the contents of a Paper which can be no evidence at all upon the point to which it refers, except upon a supposition the most unfair and insulting. The insertion of this curious document amongst the other Papers clearly implies that the clandestine circulators of them wish to give, to the assertions contained in a private Note, written under cir- cumstances not all calculated to give it extraor- dinary Credit, not merely equal but superiour weight to a Testimony given publickly, and solemnly verified on Oath. On such suspicious and disgraceful ground Dr. B. did at first disdain to combat, but yielding to the advice of a friend, whose judgment he values, he condescends to enter even upon this part of the subject, and though he cannot allow, nor, probably, would Dr, Seale himself wish, that a Declaration so made 31 should be examined with the same strictness as if it were guarded with the precision and solemnity of an Oath; yet it may be contrasted with the declarations of other Members of Christ college, who will not yield to Dr. Seale in integrity, and upon this occasion lay claim to a great accuracy of recollection. Dr. Seale zurites that Dr. Barker as well as himself objected to the Admission of Mr. Astley at Christ's, and that the ground of their objection was the form of the Permission from Pembroke Hall. Dr. Browne has sworn that nobody objected but one Fellow (meaning Dr. Seale) and that he assigned a very different reason for his opposition. Now, in the first place, Dr. Browne has great reason to lament as well as to complain that this Note has been suppressed for nearly nine years, and not produced till after the death of Dr. Barker, whose testimony, had he been living, must have directly contradicted the assertion that he, Dr. Barker, objected to the admission of Mr. Astley, for Dr. Browne solemnly avers, that before he publickly proposed Mr. Astley for admission at Christ's, he privately detailed to Dr. Barker all the circumstances that he knew of Mr. Astley respect- ing both Pembroke and Catharine Halls, and that he received Dr. Barker's full consent to the ad- mission. Again, Dr. Seale does not state in this Note that any thing was alledged against the cha- ;V2 racter of Mr. Astley by any one present at his rejection at Christ's: why then should Dr. Barker, who never was known to object to any form of licence, depart in this solitary instance from his usual practice? especially when the admission was proposed by a person who was living with him on terms of the strictest intimacy. The Persons brin^ino- the following forms were admitted by Dr. Barker without comment, which is surely sufficient to shew his practice: « St. John's College June 3. 1795. This is to certify that. Richard Barwell was ad- mitted a Member of this Society Dec 1 ". 8, 1794 and resided the major part of the following term; and that he has our leave to remove to anv other College. W. Craven, M str . W.Wilson, Dean. J. Wood, Richard Riley, Jun. Dean. Tutor. A. Frampton, Prael. Dep." " Sidney College, Oct r . 4. 1794 Mr. John Walmesley was admitted a Fellow Commoner of this College Dec 1 ". 4. 1792 has re- sided with us two Terms and has now our permis- sion to remove to any other College. J. Green, L. T. E. Pearson, Tutor. J. Holden. R. Ingram.'* 33 Iii corroboration of what Dr. Browne has said upon the point in question, the Rev. Mr. Maul, the present Senior Proctor of the University, is ready to declare that in a conversation, subsequent to Mr. Astlejr's rejection at Christ college, between Dr. Seale and Dr. Browne in the presence of Dr. Barker, of which this rejection was the subject, Dr. Seale concluded what he had been saying to Dr. Browne with words to this effect; " Well then I will go out of College and then you can admit him" If these words do not prove that Dr. Seale then conceived himself to have been the only per- son that opposed Mr. Astley's admission, Dr. B. is at a loss to conceive what could be the meaning of them. Besides is it at all probable that Dr. Browne should have expostulated with Dr. Seale upon his conduct respecting this proposed Admission in the presence of Dr. Barker, had Dr. Barker been also concerned in the Opposition ? The only Persons present at the meeting at which Mr. Astley was proposed for admission at Christ's were Dr. Barker, Dr. Seale, Mr. Hopkins, and Dr. Browne. — Death, as he has before ob- served, has deprived him of Dr. Barker's evidence, Dr. Seale's and his own have already been pro- duced; and Mr. Hopkins being the only person remaining who could possibly give any farther evidence upon this disputed point, Dr. Browne enquired of him by letter what recollection he had F 34 of the circumstances attending Mr. Astley's pro- posed admission. — To which letter he received the following answer, which, he thinks, completely settles the question of Veracity between Dr. Scale and himself. (COPY.) " Lubenham, August 6, 18 10. DEAR BROWNE, In answer to your queries respecting the admission of Mr. Astley at Christ College, I will state to you all I recollect of the transaction. The admission was proposed at a College meeting called for other business, and I very well remember your calling on me previous to the meeting, and mentioning your intention of admitting Astley, but you would first call on Dr. Barker and state the case to him. — You left my room, as I under- stood, to go to the Lodge, and afterwards told me that you had seen the Master and he had no objection to the admission. This passed before the College meeting. — At the meeting, you proposed the admission; and to the best of my recollection not a word was said on the subject but what passed between you and Dr. Seale. — Dr. S. said that he objected to the ad- mission, giving as a reason for it, that it would be unhandsome to the Master of Catharine Hall, who had already refused him, he said, at that College. The Master, then, as I recollect, concluded the subject by saying that as Dr. Seale objected to the admission, there vas an end of the matter, or words to that effect: leaving on my mind a full impression that there was no objection to the admission but from Dr. S. and indeed, as you know, one ob- 3-5 j<< tor, when tlicre was not a majority present, was sufficient to prevent the admission. With respect to the form of trie bene discessit, I have no recollection of any objection whatever being made: nor do I remember that any form was ever objected to during the time I was Tutor of Christ's. I recollect also one other circumstance relative to this admission. — When Dr. Seale and you had a warm altercation on the same subject, at a subsequent meeting, Dr. S. con- cluded the dispute, by observing that he was going out of College, and that you might then do what you liked. This is all I recollect of the business: and indeed, at so distant a period, I could hardly expect to have remembered so much as I do, if it had not been impressed very strongly by the warmth of the altercations between you and Dr. Seale on the subject. I am, DEAR BROWNE, Your's sincerely, J. HOPKINS. The Rev. Dr. Browne, Master of Christ College, Cambridge. Dr. Browne trusts that he shall be excused for availing himself of this opportunity of publicly de- fending himself against another accusation which he understands that Dr. Milner, the present Vice- chancellor preferred against him before the Heads of Houses assembled at his own Lodge, and which he is informed, that the Vice-chancellor laid much stress upon in the harangue which he de- livered against Dr. Browne, in the Vice-chancellor's 36 Court, on the 14th of February; namely, "that Dr. Browne had behaved to him with incivility as a Man, and with contempt as the first Officer of this Universit} r , by neglecting to answer a civil, polite, and friendly private Note which he wrote to Dr. Browne, to make known to him the determination of the King*s Bench, on the claim of Cognizance." — Now Dr. Browne assures the University, that he considered the Note alluded to as an official communication : and, without arguing from the Contents of it, he thinks that he was justified in so considering it from the circum- stances attending its delivery. It was brought, the University will observe, not by Dr. Milner's own Servant, but by the Vice-chancellor's Man. It was refused to be entrusted to Dr. Browne's own Servant at the door to be carried into the Parlour to him, and Dr. Browne did, therefore, leave his Company and attend the Vice-chan- cellor's Man into another Room to have it served upon him. — And having thus clearly proved, he thinks, that this Note cannot be considered as of a private nature, and that, therefore, Dr. Browne is at liberty to lay it before the University, he will leave it to others to judge of its Civility, Politeness, and Friendship. 37 (COPY.) Queen s College Lodge* Sd Feb. 1810. REV. SIR, Though I understand that your Solicitor lias been duly made acquainted with the late decision of the Court of King's Bench respect- ing the claim of Cognizance in the Cause pending between yourself and the Rev. Mr, llenouard of Sidney College, and that in consequence of that decision the said Cause is before the V. C. of this university, I think it proper to inform you that, as soon as circumstances will allow of it, I intend to hold a Court for the purpose of trying the aforesaid Cause ; and that you shall be duly informed, by the Usual process of the University Court of the time and the place fixed upon for the trial, in order that you may appear there and allege your Complaint against the said Mr. Renouard. I am, &c. ISAAC MILNER, Vicech r . To the Reverend Dr. Browne. OBSERVATIONS, &e. Dr. BROWNE hopes that he has, in the fore- going observations, completely refuted the scan- dalous charge which his Enemies affect to deduce from those Papers to which they refer: but he cannot leave the Subject entirely without giving a brief history of the Rise, the Progress, and, he wishes he might say, the Conclusion of that base conspiracy which has been formed against his Character and Comfort. It has already been stated that Dr. Browne, at the request of the Tutor of Catharine Hall, made two affidavits in the Cause which was pending ten years ago before the Lord Chancellor as Visitor of that Society. — This act of common justice to an old and much respected Friend, Dr. Browne had reason to believe, provoked the Resentment of Dr. Procter the Appellant in that Cause; but he never heard, at the time, that either Dr. Procter or any one else pretended to doubt the truth of any thing which these Affidavits contained. That these Affidavits, however, had been made use of, for the purpose of prejudicing Dr. Browne in the eyes of the University, became apparent eight 40 years after upon the following occasion. It is well known that the annual Election of the V ice- chancellor of this University takes place on the 4th of November ; and that it is the custom for the Heads of Colleges to serve that Office in a certain rotation : Dr. Browne was, last November, the Person who, according to that rotation, ought to have been elected, and, therefore, having no reason to suspect that there would, in his Case, be any deviation from the usual practice, he had, on the fourth of November, made the customary Pre- parations for the entertainment of the Electors at his Lodge, and was taking a hasty repast at one o'clock, that he might be in readiness to receive them, when, for the first time, a hint was con- veyed to him by a Friend, that a Cabal had been secretly formed in the University to oppose his Election. The accuracy of this information, of which Dr. Browne had, at first, great doubts, was proved by the Event: for forty-four Members of the Senate voted for Dr. Milner, who was the other Head (for there must be two) nominated on that occasion, and only thirty-two for Dr. Browne. Now when it is considered that the Leaders and Organizers of this Opposition were Men of great power and influence in the two great Colleges of Trinity and St. John's, and that twenty-nine out of the forty-four who voted for Dr. Milner were of those Societies; — that the resentment of the 41 Gentlemen of these two Colleges had been artfully exerted by the Propagation of a ridiculous and Utterly unfounded story, that when he became Vice-chancellor he would reject the Supplicats of all such Candidates for the degree of B. A. as had not resided the whole of their Terms within the walls of a College; — a calumny well calculated to excite the most serious alarm in the minds of the Gentlemen of Trinity and St. John's. — When it is considered that these Leaders, with all the effect which this artful misrepresentation could produce, co-operating with all the weight which influence could give, and all the activity which malice could inspire, could only bring 44 Members of the Senate to join in this attack upon Dr. Browne; whilst 32 Gentlemen, unsolicited by him, and many of them hardly known to him by sight, voluntarily came forward in his Favour; — when these circumstances are considered, Dr. Browne's rejection was, in fact, what he believes his Ene- mies themselves felt it to be, not a DEFEAT but a Triumph. These 32 Gentlemen, by their Volun- tary Votes in Dr. B.'s favour, shewed, at least, that they conceived this unusual Opposition to him to be unfair and ungenerous; but it is natural for Dr. Browne to flatter himself that sentiments of Honour and Candour were combined, in this Case, with the Feelings of Friendship and Affec- tion, and his Gratitude for their unsolicited Sup- G 43 port upon that occasion, will end only with his Life. In the list of his Opponents at that Elec- tion, there are some whom Dr. Browne might have hoped to have seen among his Friends, but he is happy to say that there is not one in that list to whom he ever gave the least reason to appear among his Enemies. Nor is it necessary for Dr. Browne to consider all those as his enemies who voted against him upon that occasion. He is well aware of the Difficulties arising from particular situations and circumstances, and he knows, for certain, that several of those, who gave their Votes against him, did it with Reluctance; and that 'others have since acknowledged that they did so merely in consequence of the Calumny that was so confidently propagated against him. Had not./rre Heads of Colleges voted for him on that occasion, he should have been overwhelmed "with shame and regret to find himself opposed by one of that venerable Body, who, upon Dr. Browne's advancement to the Mastership of Christ College, not only congratulated and complimented him upon the occasion, but also has introduced his family at Christ Lodge, and whose subsequent Hostility he is not conscious of having done any thing to provoke. The Motive generally and openly assigned for opposing Dr. Browne's Election into the Vice- chancellorship was the absurd charge against him 43 which has before been mentioned; but where tfiat idle Story was not likely to go down, an accusa- tion of a much more heinous nature was insinuated which, if believed, could not fail to turn every Hand and Heart against him. — This calumny which was meant, probably, to be only mysteri- ously hinted, and cautiously circulated, was soon, through either the exuberant Malice or indiscreet Zeal of one of his Opponents brought forth into open Day-light — for the Rev. Mr. Renouard, Fel- low of Sidney college, declared publicly, in the midst of the Senate-House, on the Day of the Election, that Dr. Browne had been guilty of the foul Crime of PERJURY in the Cause above re- ferred to. Had there not been indisputable proof of the fact, Dr. Browne thinks it would hardly be believed that a young man of very short Standing and of no Distinction in the University, could, without any prior injury received from him, or any present provocation given by him, have stood up and openly accused of the base crime of Perjury a Man who had been a great many years Tutor of a College, and had held the Offices of Mode-, rator and Scrutator in the University; who had received the highest degree the University can confer, after having performed all the exercises required by the Statutes for that and three pre- ceding ones, who had been unanimously elected Master of a very respectable Society, and who 44 had, at that very time, been nominated, by the Heads of Colleges, for the high Office of Vice- chancellor of the University. This injurious and insulting charge having been reported to Dr. B. by his Friends, he resolved to bring an Action against the bold Calumniator, but before he look any gteps for that purpose, he thought it a proper respect to the Master of Sidney to inform him of the insult he had received from one of the Fellows of his College, and of the Proceedings he meant to have recourse to for the vindication of his cha- racter, Dr. Pearson expressed great concern at the improper Conduct of this young Man, to- gether with a humane wish that any thing might be done to induce Dr. Browne to desist from his intended Prosecution of him. Soon after, Mr. Renouard called upon Dr. Browne for the. purpose, as he naturally supposed, of retracting what he had said in the Senate-House: but so far from that, he took this opportunity of insulting Dr. B. to his Face, and in his own House, by a bold repetition of the accusation and by the ad- dition of farther insults. Incensed by this fresh outrage, Dr. B. immediately brought an Action against Mr. Renouard in the Court of King's Bench; but, before it was brought to an issue, Dr. Milner, the Vice-chancellor, claimed the right of hearing and deciding the matter, and his claim was, after some discussion, allowed, 45 Not long after this, Dr. Browne received a Summons from the Vice-chancellor to attend at a Court which he informed Him he meant to hold on the 14th of February, for the Purpose of hear- ing and determining the CAUSE between him and Mr. Renouard. This summons Dr. Browne was instructed by his Counsel not to obey. To the verdict of an English Jury Dr. B. was ready to trust that which, to a Man of any Spirit, is dearer than life itself, but he must have been weak indeed had he voluntarily brought such an important Cause into the Vice-chancellor's Court. Dr. Browne is far from censuring the Vice-chan- cellor's Zeal in defence of the Privileges of the University, he only wishes that it was exerted more uniformly and frequently. In a Body consisting of above two thousand Persons, it must be supposed that a considerable number are continually engaged in Law-suits of one kind or other, and, therefore, Dr. B. thinks it unfortunate that hit should be the only one, as far as he has ever heard, in which the Vice-chancellor should have thought proper to interfere. This Privilege possessed by the University of holding a Court for trying Causes in which its own Members are concerned, is, Dr. B. thinks, a very proper and a very useful one, when exercised for the purpose of punishing Riots, or any other flagrant Breach of the Statutes by its own Members, or 46 for the Defence of its just rights when attacked by Strangers — but in Causes, whether of a Civil or Criminal Nature, where neither the Discipline nor Rights of the University are involved, Dr. Browne is of Opinion that this Privilege ought not to be exercised; because the Exercise of it in such cases would not be a Benefit but an Evil, by taking them out of the regular Courts of Justice where they would be decided by twelve impartial Men under the Direction of Judges who had spent their whole lives in the Study and Practice of the Law, and bringing them, without the Intervention of a Jury, before Men who, from the Course of their Studies, are necessarily so deficient in the knowledge of the laws, and, from circumstances incidental to their situations, so liable to be warpexl ny Prejudice or Partiality, as to render them very incompetent and unfit to discharge, in such Cases., 'the Functions of Judges. On the 14th of February, the day mentioned in the Summons, Dr. Milner, the Vice-chancellor, held a Court in the Law Schools, and there, as Dr. B. is informed, accused him, in not very civil language, of having attempted to impugn the Privileges of the University, and of having shewn a Contempt for its Court by not attending in obe- dience to the Summons. In this last accusation there appears something extremely awkward : for previous to the Delivery of his Harangue against 47 I)r, Browne, the Vice-chancellor waited a consi- derable time, in expectation, as it was understood, of Dr. B.'s appearance, and, as it was read from a Paper which he drew out of his Pocket ready written and prepared, there was, between the waiting in expectation of Dr. B.'s appearance, and the previously prepared Censure upon him for his Afow-appearance a ludicrous inconsistency. From the Charge of wishing to impugn the Privileges of the University, Dr. Browne has al- ready said enough he thinks, to vindicate himself, and he will only add that, as there were recent Cases exactly similar, and of universal Notoriety, in which the Vice-chancellor never attempted to interfere, but suffered them to be decided in a Court of Law, in the very center of the Univer- sity he thinks it unfair and unjust that an attempt should have been made to excite a Prejudice against him, for having done what others, in similar Cases, had invariably done without the least Op- position or Censure. — On the contrary, had the Idea ever occurred to him, and had he actually cited Mr. Renouard before the Vice-chancellor, he doubts not but his Enemies would have endea- voured, and certainly with much more appearance of reason, to excite a Clamour against him for bringing the Cause into a Court in which, from his situation in the University, he might be supposed to have a preponderating influence. 48 But the Reader will be impatient to know what was the consequence of this imputed Contempt of Dr. Browne's in not attending the Court to which the Vice-chancellor had summoned him. It is well known that every Court has a power of punishing for Contempt or for Resistance to its legal Proceedings; and, after the uncommon zeal and activity which the Vice-chancellor had shewn in getting this Cause out of the hands of Lord Ellenborough and the other Judges of the Court of King's Bench, there must have been some very weighty reason that prevented his following up his Censure of Dr. Browne's Disobedience to his Summons with exemplary Punishment. — A very weighty Reason there zvas, and it was this: 1 the Vice-chancellor had no Authority in a Case like this to compel an appearance: or even a Right to issue a Summons; and for not obeying a nugatory Mandate Dr. B. was stigmatized from the Judge- ment Seat as a Contemner of the Authority of the University. But it has been urged with an affected Huma- nity, that " it was cruel to subject a Young Man of narrow Income to the heavy expence of de- fending a Cause in the Court of King's Bench, merely for a hasty expression — especially as he declared, after making use of it, that what he said was entirely on the Authority of another Person." To this Dr. Browne replies, that it is for him to 49 complain of the Hardship of being put to the ex- pence of a Law-suit, and not for Mi\ Renouard, who voluntarily subjected himself to it, by making the scandalous charge of which he must have ex- pected that it would be the Consequence. That Mr. Renouard only asserted what he had been told by another Person is true, for he unequivo- cally declared to Dr. Browne himself, that he knew nothing at all either against him, or of the circum- stances on which the Charge was founded, but that he placed implicit confidence in the Person who assured him of the truth of it. Now it is neither in Law nor Morals any Justification of a Calumny that it was first received from another Person, even when that first Person's name is given up or known, but to persist in a Calumny and, at the same time, to refuse to declare from whom it was received, is to add insult to injustice, and if such suspicious and uncandid conduct was to exempt the Calumniator from Punishment, then might the best and most innocent of Men be slandered with perfect Impunity. The original inventor of a Calumny is, un- doubtedly, in a general ivay> more criminal than the Propagator of it, but if the Wickedness of this Slanderer upon trust be less, the Mischief he does is frequently as great ; whilst the Folly and Ab- surdity is all his own. Weak must be the Head of that Man who gives implicit Belief to a Calumny, H :>0 without the least proof or knowledge of the Facts upon which it is founded, and unfeeling and de- praved must be his Heart if he can utter and per- sist in that Calumny against a Person who never injured or offended him, and against whom he acknowledges that he has nothing personally to ailed ge. But insulting and provoking as Mr. Renouard's conduct was towards Dr. Browne, he would not have instituted any Proceedings against him, had he, at the time, given up his Authority for the charge which he publicly brought against him. Indeed, if Honour or Honesty could exist in the same Breast with the malignant Spirit of Envy and Detraction, this base and cowardly Calumni- ator would, of his own. accord, have come forth and rescued this credulous and unexperienced Young Man from the Disgrace and Danger to which his Confidence in an unworthy object had exposed him. But though a false notion of Honour in Mr. Renoiuird, and the ungenerous ad- vantage taken of it by his secret Prompter, have prevented his detection for the present, yet some unforeseen Circumstance may hereafter drag him into Light, and, in the mean time, Dr. Browne will take the liberty to presume that he is the same dark and malignant Calumniator who has so long been employed in attempting to depre- ciate and traduce his character. Of these Moral 51 Assassins, these liacknied Dealers in Slander and Detraction, a Charge of PERJURY is the favourite and most powerful Weapon. It is a charge most easily made, and if it is founded on Transactions that took place a great many years before, it is seldom possible to give a direct and positive Refu- tation of it : nay, it is often impossible even in- directly to refute it, except by such tedious and nice deductions from a Comparison of a Variety of minute circumstances, as few will take the trouble to read, and fewer still be able to under- stand. But the Difficulties of Refutation under which the accused in all Cases labours, are greatly encreasedy when, as is the custom with these practised Traders in Slander, a charge is not made directly, either by the Calumniator himself, or by his deluded Tools and Agents, but is conveyed in mysterious hints and artful Insinuations, supported by a clandestine Circulation of Papers on which it is hoped that the Readers of them will them- selves found an accusation : as by this mode of Proceeding the injured Party, should he obtain a sight of them, cannot defend himself without first forming, out of these base materials, an Accusa- tion against himself; from whioh cruel necessity his Enemies will be ready to make the charitable inference, that the Charge, which he has thus fixed and pointed, was not without foundation. 52 But with the hope of giving some colour to the foul Accusation brought against Dr. Browne, his Enemies have had recourse to practices still more unfair and insulting. To set one Affidavit against another, with a view of impeaching the Veracity of one of them in particular, is as nugatory as it is indecorous. If, in speaking to the same point, they vary in some minute and essential Circum-* stances, so far from being a proof of the falsity of one of them, it is a strong argument of the Truth of Both. — If, in stating the same Fact, their testi- mony is in direct Contradiction, it is plain that one of the Deponents has said what was not true, but it does not affect the Credibility of one more than of the other, much less does it prove that either of them has been guilty of PERJURY. From mis- take or Error no Man is exempt, but to constitute the crime of Perjury a Person must upon Oath state that to be true which, at the very time, he knozos to he false, This observation has, however, no application to the Affidavits in question, for there is no Contradiction whatever in them, and the Discrepancies which, at first sight, or on a cursory perusal, may seem to be in them, disap- pear upon a careful comparison of Dates and Cir- cumstances. The part of Dr. Browne's Affidavit, against which his Enemies have evidently made their 53 strongest attack, was that in which he states that he " never heard of there being two kinds of Licences to remove known by different names and used for different purposes, 1 ' and though it was impossible to disprove his Veracity on a point which could only be known to God and himself; yet he shall ever think it a providential interpo- sition in his behalf that Documents should exist which afford the most decisive Proof that no such Distinction was known to one of the oldest, and most respectable, and, in these matters generally considered, the best informed Member of the Uni- versitv; and that these Documents should happen to be in the hands of a Man whose Impartiality and Justice would not suffer him to withhold them. But if it be unfair to set one Affidavit against another with a view of impeaching the veracity of one of them in particular; how much more un- candid and insulting must it be to set a private Note against an Affidavit with the same sinister in- tention? The circumstantial Evidence produced by Dr. Browne, in support of the truth of what he has stated in his Affidavit respecting the proposed Admission of Mr. Astley at Christ college, is as strong, he thinks, as any Evidence of that kind can be; but as his Enemies had prudently sup- pressed Dr. Seale's Note till after the Death of Dr. Barker, they never conceived, nor did Dr. Browne suppose, when he first drew up his Defence, 54 that he should be able to confirm that circum- stantial Evidence by direct and positive testimony. Such testimony, however, Mr. Hopkins's Letter, and Mr. Maul's Evidence on the same subject in- disputably afford: and thus the disgraceful attempt to invalidate Dr. Browne's veracity upon the au- thority of that suspicious Note, deservedly recoils upon the Head of the Writer of it. Now Mr. Hopkins's Letter, Mr. Maul's Testi- mony, and the Bene discessits supplied by Dr. Pearson were unforeseen and unhoped for Vouch- ers, which might not have existed at all, and of which, though they did exist, Dr. Browne might not have been able to avail himself; and he trusts, therefore, that the Readers of this Defence will, from a consideration of this Circumstance, make a proper allowance, in other Cases, for those who may be attacked in a similar way, and not set them down as in some Degree, or in some Points guilty, because they may not, like Dr. Browne, have been fortunate enough to meet with extra- ordinary and unexpected Proofs of their complete Innocence. But if Dr. Browne's gratitude to Providence is justly excited for enabling him thus completely to refute the scandalous Charge that has been brought against himj his sincere Thanks are also due to that most respectable Character to whom he is indebted for the very knowledge of its Existence : Himself unassailable by Slander (at least as far as a strictly pious and virtuous Life, and the most amiable and unassuming Manners can shield a Man from its attacks) his high sense of Honour and Justice would not suffer him to conceal from Dr. Browne the Accusation insinuated against him in the Paoers so often referred to: and if the Defence he has made against that Accusation acquits him to such a Man as Dr. Pearson, he shall be satisfied that he was not deceived by the previous acquittal of his own Heart. FINIS. W. Metcalfe, Piintfr, Cambridge. : ^^mmmmmm: ■ : \. 'Haa'a, :>aa>^> **,** ft M*ftftfi&**S£A%> Pi A a. e .. . . MAp«*«A/ JJJTTTTJJTa in a * * ^M ' *$w^^ ty¥bMM r r^:^$^ S®mm* ^^A^flgj55'?f< - - - ^ *a" -I'": I ' - - .r-l Ml ~- .A I urn* -c^S- msfu : oo.^;! v li^0^t^< ■riFiif f F>tt TtniMlti&^ffTviiff • . i i * . . r- '**>'