Page:A Catalogue of Graduates who have Proceeded to Degrees in the University of Dublin, vol. 1.djvu/39

 INTRODUCTION. proposed to the rest of the Senate for that time. But it will be ob- vious how strongly these regulations tend to repress all sudden actions from heat or prejudice, and at the same time to draw out the feeling of the University, if any such exists, against the admission of any objectionable Graduate into their society. Who will say that the Charter or Royal Statutes prohibit the Provost and Senior Fellows from fortifying themselves by this additional security, of obtaining the consent of the Senate, rather than run the risk of proposing an improper person for a Degree?* Dr. Miller's minor objections against the University Statutes : — i. He finds fault with the 4th chapter of these Sta- tutes because it limits the admission of students in the case of ad eundem De- grees to those who had previously gra- duated at Cambridge," tbatUniversity having the same Statutes and the same time for conferring Degrees, "whereas the Charter of Elizabeth directs that the two Universities of England should be indifferently adopted, so far as mightbe suitable for the circumstances of Dublin (p. 2). But the Charter of Elizabeth says that the Provost and Fellows of Dublin may select rules from either of the English Universities, ex alterutra Academia, Ca7itabrigiensi aut Oxoniensi. They were not bound by this enactment to choose Statutes fi-om both the Eng- lish Universities ; and in the case of ad eundem degrees they naturally preferred the usages of Cambridge, the University with which they were familiar, their founders and earlier Provosts having been all from Cam- bridge. 2. The Vice- Chancellor is given a control over the House of Congregation which is denied to the Provost. But this a ridi- culous objection. The Vice-Chan- cellor, in the absence of the Chan- cellor, is the head of the University, the chairman of its meetings, and therefore the natural person to have control over its members, and to en - force good order (p. 26). 3. The statement of Dr. Miller that the "ex- clusive power of conferring Degrees has been vested in the Board " is a mistake. No such power is vested in the Board, who only have the power of prescribing the acts and exercises required for the several Degrees, and of presenting to the Senate those who have performed the exercises required. 4. Another objection is a quibble on the election of the Senior Master Non-Regent, who is proposed to the Senate by the Vice-Chancellor and the Provost. Dr. Miller thinks that this language gives the Senate no right of rejecting the person so proposed. But common sense would say that he is proposed that it may be seen whether the Se- nate approves of the nomination or not. If not, the process can be re- peated. His being "the Senior Non- Regent Master resident in the Cul-
 * We may notice here some of