Gardiner and the Attempted Reform of Universities

Home , Atterbury Plot, Francis Atterbury, George Smalridge

Chapter 6 Gardiner and the Attempted Reform of Universities

Exploring further into contemporary events between 1715 and 1719, allows Archbishop Wake’s rulings against Bernard Gardiner, which resulted in the loss of much of the warden’s authority within All Souls, to be viewed against is- sues of national concern that would not be kept at bay by ancient statutes and venerable college walls. Several related factors, some broad and others specific to happenings within Oxford help to shine greater light upon the Archbishop’s actions against Gardiner’s authority regarding college elections and dispen- sations from orders. Wake’s response reflected the changing realities of Ha- noverian England: specifically that Parliament was the legislative body of the nation and that Erastian views of the Church of England held sway within the corridors of power. The attainment of the English crown by the German born George i, the first member of the House of Hanover to do so, in 1714, caused excitement in some circles and apprehension combined with inaction in others. Within hours of Anne’s death on 1 August 1714, several disgruntled Tories and Jacobite sympa- thizers including the Duke of Ormonde (since 1688 Chancellor of Oxford) and the Bishop of Rochester Francis Atterbury (formerly Dean of Christ Church 1711–1713) met to discuss what actions could be taken to prevent George from becoming king. Rebellion from Scotland seemed the only viable option with Ormonde pegged to take a leading role.1 The conversation was vigorous and heartfelt, but ultimately it produced little of lasting substance and only the most serious High-Church Tories saw any hope that their discussed activities would halt the lawful succession. Even Atterbury, who had argued in support of elevating the importance of Convocation in the governance structure of the nation, swore allegiance to the new Hanoverain regime, although he remained a vocal critic of it. The bishop’s Tory stance and High-Church views made his loyalty suspect in the eyes of the Whigs who would soon dominate the ad- ministration.2 What is more, Atterbury’s association with Christ Church and that college’s Tory reputation, further cast a cloud of suspicion over Oxford as a whole. How much the university identified with Atterbury is questionable,

1 Archiblad S. Foord, His Majesty’s Opposition, 1714–1830 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), 15, 44. 2 Jeffrey R. Wigelsworth, Deism in Enlightenment England: Theology, Politics, and Newtonian Public Science (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009), 30–31.

Gardiner and the Attempted Reform of Universities 145 however. He is reputed to have been the “most unpopular head” in “five centu- ries” of Christ Church’s history, a man for whom politics was always a greater attraction than academics. His tenure as Dean was marked by attempts to exert sole control over all aspects of college governance and no tear was shed when Queen Anne appointed him Bishop of Rochester in 1713. Atterbury’s successor George Smalridge had little political ambition and looked to calmly steer the college through the Hanoverian succession by stepping Christ Church away from politics and toward academics.3 In the immediate period surrounding the succession, what was worse for the university’s reputation than Atterbury’s part in the opposition to George i was Chancellor Ormonde’s role. When the abortive Atterbury Plot designed to restore the Stuarts, became known and halted in 1722, however, many observers had their suspicions about the institu- tion further confirmed. George i had the distinction of being the first monarch to ascend to the throne in accordance with the terms set out in the Act of Settlement. In other words, his attainment of the crown came by act of Parliament and not through an act of God or by right of dynastic succession. He accepted that the con- ditions of his rule were crafted to limit his individual power and strengthen the liberties of his subjects. But George i was hardly a prize. Aside from his Protestant beliefs, there was little for the English public to adore about their new king: he spoke no English, refused to learn, his marriage was a farce, and his mistresses were an embarrassment. Jacobites argued for English pride and played upon German stereotypes in their earliest reactions against George i, who at age fifty-four, they claimed, would not be one for new tricks.4 For hardnosed Jacobites who still saw the son of James ii, James Francis Ed- ward, known to historians as the Old Pretender, as their rightful king, the sight of George i was almost too much to bear when he finally set foot in England on 18 September, a full seven weeks after Queen Anne’s death. Nonetheless, James, styled James iii by his supporters, refused to abandon his Catholicism as a means of winning over the nation, which might have rallied around an- other Stuart monarch had fears of Rome and popish conspiracies not made the present option disagreeable. Robert Harley, political pragmatist that he was, knew that there could be no Stuart resurrection. James iii was too French to be trusted to uphold the constitution of England and, as the memory of

3 Judith Curthoys, The Cardinal’s College: Christ Church, Chapter and Verse (London: Profile Books, 2012), 148–155. 4 Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707–1837 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 46, 47; Hannah Smith, Georgian Monarchy: Politics and Culture, 1714–1760 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 2, 6.