In our universities ... were taught divinity and canon law (then, t. Hen. III., much in vogue), and the friers resorting thither in great numbers and applying themselves closely to their studies, outdid the monks in all fashionable knowledge. But the monks quickly perceived it, and went also to the universities and studied hard, that they might not be run down by the friers.[49] And as the friers got houses in the universities, the monks also got colleges founded and endowed there[50] for the education of their novices, where they were for some years instructed in grammar, philosophy, and school divinity, and then returning home, improved their knowledge by their private studies, to the service of God and the credit of their respective societies. So that a little before the Reformation, the greatest part of the proceeders in divinity at Oxford were monks and Regular canons. [Headnote: FAVOURITISM OF THE RICH IN THE UNIVERSITIES.] By Harrison’s time, A.D. 1577[51], rich men’s sons had not only pressed into the Universities, but were scrooging poor men’s sons out of the endowments meant only for the poor, learning the lessons that Mr Whiston so well shows our Cathedral dignitaries have carried out with the stipends of their choristers, boys and men. “_Les gros poissons mangent les menus._ Pro. Poore men are (easily) supplanted by the rich, the weake by the strong, the meane by the mighty.”[52] (Cotgrave, u. _manger_.) The law of “natural selection” prevails. Who shall say nay in a Christian land professing the principles of the great “Inventor of Philanthropy”? Whitgift for one, see his Life of Strype, Bk. I. chap. xiii. p. 148-50, ed. 1822. In 1589 an act 31 Eliz. c. 6, was passed to endeavour to prevent the abuse, but, like modern Election-bribery Acts with their abuse, did not do it. [Headnote: BAD EXAMPLE OF RICH MEN AT COLLEGE.]