teri patriique juris notas habere.” And the ſtatutes[1] of the univerſity of Cambridge ſpeak expreſſly to the ſame effect.
From the general uſe and neceſſity of ſome acquaintance with the common law, the inference were extremely eaſy, with regard to the propriety of the preſent inſtitution, in a place to which gentlemen of all ranks and degrees reſort, as the fountain of all uſeful knowlege. But how it has come to paſs that a deſign of this ſort has never before taken place in the univerſity, and the reaſon why the ſtudy of our laws has in general fallen into diſuſe, I ſhall previouſly proceed to enquire.
Sir John Forteſcue, in his panegyric on the laws of England, (which was written in the reign of Henry the ſixth) puts[2] a very obvious queſtion in the mouth of the young prince, whom he is exhorting to apply himſelf to that branch of learning; “why the laws of England, being ſo good, ſo fruitful, and ſo commodious, are not taught in the univerſities, as the civil and canon laws are?” In anſwer to which he gives[3] what ſeems, with due deference be it ſpoken, a very jejune and unſatisfactory reaſon; being in ſhort, that “as the proceedings at common law were in his time carried on in three different tongues, the Engliſh, the Latin, and the French, that ſcience muſt be neceſſarily taught in thoſe three ſeveral languages; but that in the univerſities all ſciences were taught in the Latin tongue only; and therefore he concludes, that they could not be conveniently taught or ſtudied in our univerſities.” But without attempting to examine ſeriouſly the validity of this reaſon, (the very ſhadow of which by the wiſdom of your late conſtitutions is entirely taken away) we perhaps may find out a better, or at leaſt a more plauſible account, why the ſtudy of the municipal laws has been baniſhed from theſe ſeats of ſcience, than what the learned chancellor thought it prudent to give to his royal pupil.
