A P PEN Di X.
at least there is one precedent for restoring the scholar, and there doth not appear to be one for detaining him.
The single instance, which you have happen'd to pick up, is of one Thomas Wyffe, who, in the year 1548. was, by the Vice-chancellor's order, restored to Mr. Man, principal of Whitehall, by John Bury, Rector of St. Mary College, into which he had admitted him in the irregular manner before mentioned.
You seem to allow, Sir, though with some difficulty, that, in this case, Mr. Bury was not obliged to pay the[1] penalty of forty shillings, enjoined by the statute, but only to restore the scholar; your inference from which is, that the Vice-chancellor, at that time, did not think the penalty sufficient, (though, by your[2] own acknowledgement, forty shillingswas then of at least six times the value that it is at present.) or that it was eluded, as it is now, or that he did it to give satisfaction to the Governor, who was injured by this irregular remove, and therefore preferr'd the restitution of the scholar to the payment of the penalty, as more agreeable to the intention of the law.
I am still so unhappy as to differ in my opinion; and?can by no means allow, that the Vice-chancellor, in 1548. ordered this restitution upon any of these accounts; but, as it is much more reasonable to suppose, did it at the voluntary request of Mr. Bury, who, upon this complaint, chose rather to restore the scholar, by way of commutation, as it is usual in other matters, than be obliged to pay so heavy a penalty: and then this instance is nothing to your purpose.
But
