[81] The picture given by Dr. Stubbs was possibly never realised. There are several extant views of the College subsequent to 1745 and up to 1797, which all represent the belfry as a dome without the lantern or the vane, “consisting of a harp and crown, copper gilt” (Stubbs, p. 187). A rare aquatint of 1784 does, however, give the vane, with other details which are highly improbable. It was a habit to print architects’ drawings of buildings in process of completion, as may be seen in Poole and Cash’s views, in which many plates give the intentions of the architect, which were never carried out. [82] Mr. Taylor, in his history, has given all the petitions and replies from the Journals of the House of Commons. The following is the summary:--Queen Anne and George I. for Library--in 1709, £5,000; 1717, £5,000; 1721, £5,000. George II. for Parliament Square--1751, £5,000; 1753, £20,000; 1755, £5,000 (£20,000 asked for in the petition): 1757, £5,000; 1759, £10,000. George III., in 1787, £3,000. Between the last two dates considerable sums were obtained from the Board of Erasmus Smith. [83] While the impossibility of defraying these expenses without a building fund is strongly urged in the various petitions, another set of documents, the King’s Letters, issued for the increase of salaries of Provost, Fellows, and other officers in 1758, 1759, 1761, and subsequently, state as the reason the great increase in the revenues of the College, which justify such changes. No one seems to have thought of comparing these statements with the begging petitions. [84] No reasons are assigned by Dr. Stubbs, who reports these facts apparently from the Register; but we may infer that the large square Hall over the gate was thought necessary for a Regent House, or Hall for the disputations of the Masters, in place of the older room, which disappeared with the demolishing of decayed buildings; and by this title we know that that Hall was originally known. This alteration of plan would make a dome impossible. As soon as the central dome was abandoned, it would follow that the cupolas, one of which had been already finished, must also be abandoned. [85] This cannot easily be reconciled with the statement above made (p. 65), that Archbishop Vesey was Vice-Chancellor in the previous year, and in the absence of the Chancellor could act as Visitor. [86] The facts in Dr. Stubbs’ 10th chapter, especially the classical course of 1736, show that the 15th chapter of the old Statute was liberally interpreted. Indeed Greek and Latin are there prescribed, but the books not specified. In Logic the directions are far more precise. Nor was there any relaxation of the strict directions with regard to Latin Essays and summaries of work, or to Disputations, which certainly lasted till the close of the 18th century. [Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)] CHAPTER IV. FROM 1758 TO THE CLOSE OF THE CENTURY.