It is clear, therefore, that a portion of Selden's collection came to the Library by his bequest immediately after his death. And the reason why the whole was not bequeathed is certainly not correctly stated by Burnet, nor even by Wood, who says that he had been informed that it was because the borrowing of certain MSS. had been refused. For the Convocation Register shows that a grace was _passed_ in Convocation, on Aug. 29, 1654, which sanctioned the giving leave to Selden to have MSS. from the collections of Barocci, Roe, and Digby (these donors having either expressed an opinion, or distinctly stipulated, that the rigour of the Library Statutes should sometimes be relaxed), provided he did not have more than three at a time, and that he gave bond in £100 (not £1000) for the return of each of them within a year[113]. Had these conditions been really the cause of Selden's taking offence, his executors would hardly have stipulated, as they actually did, in their own conditions of gift, that no book from his collection should hereafter be lent to any person upon any condition whatsoever. But there is certainly some obscurity hanging over the matter, which probably may be dispersed by further investigation. The writer of the sketch of the history of the Bodleian prefixed to Bernard's _Cat. MSS._, after quoting Wood's account, only says, when barely more than forty years had elapsed, that he will not venture to speak rashly about the case of the lending of books; as if it were already forgotten how the facts stood. On the proposal to lend being first mooted, Barlow, the Librarian, drew up a paper on the general question, in which he opposed it both on the grounds of Statute and expediency; the original MS. of which still exists in the Library. Selden was at first mentioned in this paper by name, with distinct reference to his application; but the name was subsequently crossed out wherever it thus occurred, and the subject treated without any personal reference[114]. In this paper the Librarian objects to the proposal, firstly, on the ground of precedent, since, though the University had power, with the joint consent of the Chancellor, Heads of Houses, and Convocation, to lend books, yet it had never thought fit to do so, except with regard to Lord Pembroke's MSS.; secondly, on the ground that if the rule were once broken, it would be impossible to refuse any person, without incurring great odium, while the gratifying all applicants would disperse into private hands the books intended for the public. He then proceeds as follows:--