This public evidence has, however, not weighed in the minds of historians so strongly as the violent pamphlet called _Lachrymæ Academicæ_, written against the Provost by his bitter personal enemy, Dr. Patrick Duigenan, who as a Junior Fellow was at perpetual variance with his chief, and at last resigned his Fellowship to take a Chair of Law, which was increased in value (with the Provost’s consent) to induce his resignation. This exceedingly violent _ex parte_ statement seems to me chiefly valuable for its allusions to the internal affairs of the College not at issue in the dispute. The tone is scurrilous, and the confident prediction that a few more years of the Provost’s manipulation must ruin the College falsified by the facts. Instead of securing all the posts in the College for partizans of his own, the Provost met with more and more opposition, especially from the Junior Fellows, as years elapsed. In 1775, a scholar whom he had deprived insisted upon a Visitation, in which Primate Robinson, the Vice-Chancellor, decided against the Provost. In 1791, another Vice-Chancellor, Lord Clare, decided against him on the right of negative, which he claimed under the Statutes in every election. The sense of the Statute is plain enough. It ordains that the majority of Provost and Board shall decide elections; but if such majority could not be obtained after two scrutinies--that is to say, if the Senior Fellows had divided their votes among three or more candidates, so that none of them had more than three--then the Provost’s vote, even if it stood alone, shall decide the election. This very reasonable Statute was, however, so worded, that another interpretation was possible, ordaining that even in an absolute majority of votes the Provost’s must be one. Lord Clare decided rightly that the disputed words _una cum Præposito, vel eo absente Vice-Præposito_, merely meant that the Senior Fellows could not elect without the presence of either of these officers.[94]