scarcity of the MS., which would otherwise be unaccountable. It is easy to imagine that a great majority of the pupils of Vacarius gave up or destroyed their copies under the dread of a despotic government, and the loss of the epitome would be perhaps less regretted if, as was probably the case, the school of Roman law at Oxford was temporarily broken up. The copies that remained would in all likelihood be placed in monasteries, where they would be safe from the hands of the destroyer; and we should probably be in possession of many of them at the present moment, had it not been for the ruthless destruction of the monastic libraries which is known to have taken place at the period of the Reformation. The only relic of those ancient and invaluable collections are now to be found in the libraries of our cathedrals, which contain many curious, and occasionally valuable manuscripts. It is certainly to be wondered at that no copy of the epitome should be in existence at Oxford, where so many must at one time have been collected, but it is easy to conceive that, supposing the decree for destruction was vigorously carried out, the place where the work was known to abound would be the very one where the most diligent search would be made. No doubt a number of copies were sent to the continent, a means of preserving them, which would be rendered more easy by the close connection then subsisting between England and Normandy; and thus the MSS. previously mentioned were kept safely for future times. Further search abroad, particularly in the conventual libraries of Italy and Spain, might possibly bring more of them to light. It may be added, before proceeding to further remarks, that the circumstance of the study of the Roman law having been forbidden by Stephen is also mentioned by Roger Bacon in a passage quoted by Selden: Rex quidem Stephanus allatis legibus Italiæ in Angliam prohibuit, ne ab aliquo retinerentur.

It is to be noted that this author expressly speaks of the Roman law as the law of the laity, as opposed to that of the clergy, the Canon Law.

The reasons which led to this arbitrary prohibition of the study of Roman law have been variously stated by different writers. Some suppose that papal influence was used to put down a branch of literature which diverted the minds of the clergy from their more legitimate pursuits, and which threatened to swamp the faculties of theology and Canon Law. But though there can be no question as to the hostility entertained towards the Pandects by the popes of that day, there is certainly no proof of any papal interference in the matter. The expressions of John of Salisbury rather point to the support of Vacarius by the clergy. Ill will on the part of the common lawyers, who are supposed to have been disaffected to the new jurisprudence, has also been conjectured, but of this again there is no proof. The more usual reason alleged is the jealousy that was felt by the graduates in arts towards the flourishing school of Vacarius; and this is the view adopted by Duck, and the one most supported by probability. But whatever the cause of the edict, it is certain that it became in a short time nearly inoperative, the study of Roman law being pursued at Oxford with unabated zeal during the succeeding reigns, when several eminent professors shed a lustre over the school. Our common lawyers consequently drew many of their maxims, to the great benefit of our law, from Justinian's jurisprudence, and Bracton more especially transcribed from the Institutes and Digest. His work alone is a sufficient proof that the Roman law was then generally studied, as he would hardly have plagiarised so fully, save from a volume too well known to need a reference.

The fate of Vacarius after the publication of the edict referred to is somewhat obscure. The date of the edict is generally placed in the year 1150, though Wenck is inclined to think that it was a year or two later. It is certain that the eminent Italian lived for many years afterwards, and that his residence was in this country; but whether he continued to teach law at Oxford after the edict was either repealed or became a dead letter is quite uncertain. We only know that

the study of the Corpus Juris in the University was renewed with great success, and that the students in the law faculty were exceedingly numerous; but we are ignorant whether Vacarius was still the professor. It is, however, not improbable that, on the first publication of the edict, he sought the only secure refuge then in existence from regal violence, entering into holy orders. But this is merely matter of conjecture. We know, however, that Vacarius was alive and in England some years after the date of the edict, as there is in existence a decretal epistle of Pope Alexander III., directed ad abbatem de Fontibus et magistrum Vacarium, which was concerning a case of supposed bigamy, into which Vacarius was directed to investigate. The papacy of Alexander commenced in 1159, and ended in 1181, and between these dates the publication of the letter must be placed. Wenck thinks, for several reasons which he gives, that Vacarius must, under any circumstances, have been alive after 1164. After this date we lose all trace of him, and are entirely ignorant as to the place and manner of his death; but there can be little doubt that that event took place in England.

Wenck is inclined to think that he entered the Monastery of Wells, and if so his remains probably rest in the old burying ground of that monastery.

To proceed to a description of the MS. lying on the table. It is an epitome of the whole Roman law, and not, as has sometimes been supposed, of the Code alone. It is arranged in nine books (though the copy is not entirely perfect) with a preface and title, and the extracts from the Digest and Code are intermingled, so as to bring together the whole of the law on any particular subject. The Corpus, in fact, is systematised as well as epitomised, and the acquirement of its principles thus greatly facilitated. It may be observed that there was a section of the Bolognese school of law who objected to the compilation of any such epitome, and in his preface to his work Vacarius inserted a passage intended to answer these objectors.

After reading, many years since, Wenck's account of Vacarius I became convinced that if there were any copy of the work left in England it might be discovered by searching diligently among collections of the Code, under some copy of which it might lie hidden. But my object in having recourse to the Chapter Library at Worcester was to examine a copy of Azo's Summa, Azo being a Bolognese jurist who, like Vacarius, made a compilation of the Corpus. The Azo proved genuine, but my attention was attracted by a MS. labelled in the catalogue as "a Code of Justinian, in nine books." As the Code has twelve books I searched for them, and soon recognising passages from the Digest, I found that I had before me a Summa of the Roman law. In a short time I found the very passage, to which I have alluded, written by Vacarius in reply to his Bolognese objectors, and corresponding word for word with that given by Wenck. It is much to be regretted that the three first leaves have been cut out, and that a portion of the end is missing, but it is most fortunate that enough of the preface is left to demonstrate the identity of the MS.

ART. VIII-CHURCH PATRONAGE IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND.

N our number for February, 1869 (Vol. XXVIII., p. 267),

we had an article on Church Patronage as existing in England. The question had been for some years previously keenly agitated in Scotland, and in the General Assembly of the National Church, held at Edinburgh, in May of that year, some passages of our article were read. The Assembly, by a large majority-193 to 88-came to resolutions to seek, at the hands of the Legislature, some modification of the existing law of patronage.

The resolution was in the following moderate terms—indicative of the national caution:

"Approve of the report so far as it indicates the evils which have arisen from the existing law of patronage, the advantages which would arise from the abolition thereof, with such compensation to patrons as may appear just and expedient, and in so far as it recom. mends that the nomination of ministers should be vested in heritors, elders, and communicants, leaving the details, both as to the constitution of the nominating body and the congregation at large, to be arranged so that there should be conferred on the permanent male communicants of each parish the greatest amount of influence in the election of ministers which may be found consistent with the preservation of order and regularity in the proceedings."

The Assembly addressed petitions to both Houses of Pariament, and a large and influential deputation, including most of the Scotch members of Parliament, waited on the Premier on the subject. Mr. Gladstone, with corresponding caution, requested that a statement of the case should be first submitted to him.

We have now before us the report of the Committee appointed by the Assembly of 1868, with a copious appendix containing the opinions of presbyteries and individual officebearers of the Church. These, as might be expected, are varied, and often conflicting, but on the whole afford undoubted evidence that the existing law is on a very unsatisfactory basis, and at least its modification has become a matter of imperious necessity. We have also before us the memorial prepared for the Government. It is chiefly his

torical, and in a small space gives a very accurate outline of the history of the Church in the north, which must be of deep interest to all who desire to know the true basis of the National Church in our sister kingdom, the welfare and fortunes of which it is impossible to dissever from the more comprehensive State Church of England.

It has been truly said that State Churches are now on their