text:
Page:Niles' Weekly Register, v37.djvu/452

436 on them, have been the leading objects in our policy, and have led to expenditures, both of blood and treasure, not inconsiderable; not indeed exceeding the importance of the object, and not yielded grudgingly or reluctantly certainly; but yet not inconsiderable, though necessary sacrifices, made for proper ends. The Indian title has been extinguished at the expense of many millions. Is that nothing? There is still a much more material consideration. Theses colonists, if we are to call the so; in passing the Alleghany, did not pass beyond the care and protection of their own government. Wherever the went, the public arm was still stretched over them. A parental government at home was still ever mindful of their condition, and their wants; and nothing was spared, which a just sense of their necessities required. Is it forgotten, that it was one of the most arguous duties of the government, in its earliest years, to defent the frontiers against the north-western Indians? Are the sufferings and misfortunes under Harmar and St. Clair, not worthy to be remembered. Do the occurrences connected with these efforts shew and unfeeling neglect of western interests? ANd here, sir, what becomes of the gengleman's analogy? What English armies accompanied our ancestors to clear the forests of a barbarous foe? What treasures of the exchequer were expended in buying up the original title to the soil? What government arm held it aegis over our fathers' heads, as they pioneered their way in the wilderness? Sir, it was not til general Wayne's victory, in 1794, that it could be said, we had conquered the savages. It was not til that period, that the government could have considered itself as having established an entire ability to protect those who should undertake the conquest of the wilderness. And here, sir, at the epoch of 1794, let us pause, and survey the scene. It is now thirty-five years since that scene actually existed. Let us, sir, look back, and behold it. Over all that is now Ohio, there then stretched one vast wilderness, unbroken, except by two small spots of civilized culture, the one at Marietta, and the other at Cincinnati. At these little openings, hardly each a pin's point upon the map, the arm of the frontiersman had leveled the forest, and let in the sun. These little patches of earth, and themselves almost shadowed by the hanging boughs of that wilderness, which had stood and perpetuated itself, from century to century, ever since the creation, were all that had then been rendered verdant by the hand of man. In an extend of hundreds, and thousands of square miles, no other surface of smiling green attested the presence of civilization. The hunter's path crossed mighty rivers, flowing in solitary grandeur, whose sources lay in remote and unknown regions of the wilderness. It struck upon the north, on a vast inland sea, over which the tempests raged as on the ocean; all over was bare creation. It was fresh, untouched, unbounded, magnificent wilderness. And, sir, what is it now? Is it imagination only, or can it possibly be fact, that presents such a change as surprises and astonishes us, when we turn our eyes to what Ohio now is? Is is reality, or a dream, that in so short a period even as thirty-five years, there has sprung up, on the same surface, and independent state, with a million of people? A million of inhabitants! an amount of pupulation greater than that of all the cantons of Switzerland; equal to one-third of all the people of the United States, when they undertook to accomplish their independence. This new member of the republic has already left far behind her a majority of the old states. She is now by the side of Virginia and Pennsylvania, and, in point of numbers, will shortly admit no equal but New York herself. If, sir, we may judge of measures by their results, what lessons do these facts read us, upon the policy of the government? What inferenced do they authorize, upon the general questin of kindness, or unkindness? What convictions do they enforce, as to the wisdom and ability, on the one hand, or the folly and incapacity, on the other, of our general administration of western affairs? Sir, does it not require some portion of self-respect in us, to imagine, that if our light had shone on the path of government, if our wisdom could have been consulted in its measures, a more rapid advance ot strength and prosperity would have been experienced? For my own part, while I am struck with wonder at the success, I also look with admiration at the wisdom and foresight which originally arranged and prescribed the system for the settlement of the western country to the full extent of our utmost means.

But, sir, to return to the remarks of the honorable member from South Carolina. He says that congress has sold these lands, and put the money into the treasure, while other government, acting in a more liberal spirit, gave away their lands, and that we ought, also, to have given ours away. I shall not stop to state an account between our revenues derived from land, and our expenditures in Indian treaties and Indian wars. But, I must refer the honorable gentleman to the origin of our own title to the soil of these territories, and remind him that we received them on conditions, and under trusts, which would have been violated by giving the soil away. For compliance with those conditions, and the just execution of those trusts, the public faith was solumnly pledged. The public lands of the United States have been derived from four principal sources. First, cessions made to the United States by individual states, on the recommendation or request of the old congress. Second. The compact with Georgia, in 1802. Third. The purchase of Lousiana in 1803. Fourth. The purchase of Florida, in 1819. Of the first class, the most important was the cession of Virginia, of all her right and title, as well as soil as jurisdiction, to all the territory within the limits of her charter, lying to the northwest of the river Ohio. It may not be ill-timed to recur to the causes and occasions of this and other similar grants.

When the war of the revolution broke out, a great difference existed in different states, in the proportion between people and territory. The northern and eastern states, with very small surfaces, contained comparatively a thick population, and there was generally within their limits, no great quantity of waste lands belonging to the government, or the crown of England. On the contrary, there were in the southern states, in Virginia and in Georgia for example, extensive public domains, wholly unsettled, and belonging to the crown. As these possessions would necessarily fall from the crown, in the event of the prosperous issue of the war, it was insisted that they ought to devolve on the United States, for the good of the whole. The war, it was argued, was undertaken and carried on at the common expense of all the colonies; its benefits, if successful, ought also to be common; and the property of the common enemy, when vanquished, ought to be regarded as the general acquisition of all. While yet the war was raging, it was contended that congress ought to have the power to dispose of vacant and unpatented lands, commonly called crown lands, for defraying the expenses of the war, and for other public and general purposes. "Reason and justice," said the assembly of New Jersey in 1778, "must decide, that the property which existed in the crown of Great Britain, previous to the present revolution, ought now to belong to the congress, in trust for the use and benefit of the United States. They have fought and bled for it, in proportion to their respective abilities, and therefore the reward ought to be predilectionally distributed. Shall such states as are shut out, by situation, from availing themselves of the least advantage from this quarter, be left to sink under an enormous debt, while others are enabled, in a short period, to replace all their expenditures from the hard earnings of the whole confederacy."

Moved by these considerations, and these addresses made it, congress took up the subject, and in September, 1780, recommended to the several states in the union, having claims to western territory, to make liberal cessions of a portion thereof to the United States; and on the 10th of October, 1780, congress resolved, that any lands so ceded in pursuance of their preceding recommendation, should be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States; should be settled and formed into distinct republican states, to become members of the federal union, with the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other states; and that the lands should be granted, or settled, at such times, and under such regulations, as should be agreed on by congress. Again, in


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/338

 330 ought to find in their traditions, customs, beliefs, etc., the old Hungarian or pre-Hungarian mythology.

Without prejudicing the case, it is, however, noteworthy that, as far as fairy tales are concerned, the stock of the Székely is almost the same as that which is known to exist among the other nationalities inhabiting Transylvania. True, they are all tinged with a national colouring, but the substance is the same.

This fact is prominently brought out by the fairy tales which are published here by Miss Gaye, who has translated them from the collection of Benedek. A number of Székely fairy tales are included in the valuable publications of Messrs. Jones and Kropf, of Magyar folk-tales. They are taken from Erdely's and Kriza's collections; whilst those published here for the first time in English translation are told by Benedek Elek, himself a Székely, like Kriza. In these the original form seems to have been better preserved than in those two collections named above. None of the heroes has any special modern name; they are either anonymous or bear popular names.

Some of Miss Gaye's collection are variants of the usual folk-tales, and it has been thought unnecessary to reproduce them here again; others are either totally different or vary in essential points. Of these the following have been selected for publication.

The importance of this similarity is by no means to be undervalued. It affords a powerful aid to the theory of migration of fairy tales. If fairy tales resemble one another among nations that are known to be totally different from one another, racially and historically, who have nothing in common with the other nations, neither language nor religion, who trace their descent from a source entirely remote from any of the other nations, nay, who may be the result of an amalgamation of various nationalities—how could these fairy tales be the heirlooms of a hoary antiquity or the residue of an ancient mythology?

In the notes which accompany these tales special

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:Niles' Weekly Register, v37.djvu/453

Rh September, 1783, congress passed another resolution, expressing the conditions on which cessions from states should be received; and in October following, Virginia made her cession, reciting the resolution, or act, of September preceeding, and then transfering her title to her north-western territory to the United States, upon the express condition, that the lands, so ceded, should be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States, as had become or should become members of the confederation, Virginia inclusive, and should be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever. The grants from other states were on similar conditions. Massachusetts and Connecticut both had claims to western lands, and both relinquished them to the United States in the same manner. These grants were all made on three substantial conditions or trusts. First, that the ceded territories should be turned into states, and admitted in due time into the union, with all the rights belonging to other states. Second, that the lands should form a common fund to be disposed of for the general benefit of all the states. Third, that they should be sold and settled, at such time and in such manner as congress should direct.

Now, sir, it is plain that congress never has been, and is not now, at liberty to disregard these solemn conditions. For the fulfillment of all these trusts, the public faith was, and is, fully pledged. How, then, would it have been possible for congress, if it had been so disposed, to give away these public lands? How could they have followed the example of other governments, if there had been such, and considered the conquest of the wilderness an equivalent compensation for the soil? The states had looked to this territory, perhaps too sanguinely, as a fund out of which means were to come to defray the expenses of war. It had been received as a fund; as a fund congress had bound itself to apply it. To have given it away, would have defeated all the objects which congress and particular states, had had in view, in asking and obtaining the cession and would have plainly violated the condition, which the ceding states attached to their own grants.

The gentleman admits, that the lands cannot be given away until the national debt is paid; because, to a part of that debt they stand pledged. But this is not the original pledge. There is, so to speak, an earlier mortgage. Before the debt was funded, at the moment of the cession of the lands, and by the very terms of that cession, every state in the union obtained an interest in them, as in a common fund. Congress has uniformly adhered to this condition. It has proceeded to sell the lands, and to realize as much from them, as was compatible with the other trusts created by the same deeds of cession. One of these deeds of trusts, as I have already said, was, that the lands should be sold and settled, at such time and manner as congress shall direct. The government has always felt itself bound, in regard to sale and seltlement to exercise its own best judgment, and not to transfer the discretion to others. lt has not felt itself at liberty to dispose of the soil, therefore, in large masses, to individuals, thus leaving to them the time and manner of settlement. It had stipulated to use its own judgment. If for instance in order to rid itself of the trouble of forming a system for the sale of those lands and going into detail, it had sold the whole of what is now Ohio in one mass, to individuals or companies, it would clearly have departed from its just obligations. and who can now tell, or conjecture, how great would have been the evil of such a course? Who can say, what mischiefs would have ensued, if congress had thrown these territories into the hands of private speculation? Or who, on the other hand, can now forsee, what the event would be should the government depart from the same wise course hereafter and, not content with such constant absorption of the public lands as the natural growth of our population may accomplish, should force great portions of them at nominal or very low prices, into private hands to he sold and settled, as and when such holders might think would be most for their own interest? Hitherto, sir, I maintain congress has acted wisely, and done its duty on this suhjeet. I hope it will continue to do it Departing from the original idea, so soon as it was found practicable and convenient, of selling by townships, congress has disposed of the soil in smaller and still smaller portions, till, at length, it sells in parcels of no more than eighty acres; thus putting it into the power of every man in the country, however poor, but who has health and strength to become a freeholder if he desires, not of barren acres, but of rich and fertile soil. The government has performed all the conditions of the grant.—While it has regarded the public lands as a common fund, and has sought to make what reasonably could be made of them, us a source of revenue, it has also applied its best wisdoen to sell and settle them, as fast and as happily as possible; and whensoever numbers would warrant it, each territory has been successively admitted into the union, with all the rights of an independent state.

Is there then, sir, I ask, any well founded charge of hard dealing, any just accusation for negligence indifference, or parsimony which is capable of being sustained against the government of the country, in its conduct towards the new states? Sir, I think there is not.

But there was another observation of the hon. member, which, I confess, did not a little surprise me. As a reason for wishing to get rid of the public lands as soon as we could, and as we might, the hon. gentleman, said, he wanted no permanent source of income. He wished to see the time when the government should not posecss a shilling of permanent revenue. If he could speak magical word and by that word convert the whole capitol into gold, the word would not be spoken. The administration of a fixed revenue, he said, only consolidates the government and corrupts the people! Sir, I confess I beard these sentiments uttered on this floor, not without deep regret and pain.

I am aware that these, and similar opinions, are espoused by certain persons out of the capitol, and out of this government, but I did not expect so soon to find them here Consolidation!—that perpetual cry both of terror and delusion—consolidation! Sir, when gentlemen speak of the effects of a common fund, belonging to all the states, as having a tendency to consolidation, what do they mean? Do they mean, or can they mean any thing more than that the union of the states will be strengthened, by whatever continues or furnishes inducements to the people of the states to hold togethter? If they mean merely this, then no doubt, the public lands, as well as every thing else in which we have a common interest, tends to consolidation and lo this species of consolidation every true American ought to be attached; it is neither more nor less than strengthening the union itself. This is the sense in which the framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. They tell us, in the letter submitting the constitution to the consideration of the country, that "In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds led each state in the convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected."

This, sir, is general Washington's consolidation. This is the true constitutional consolidation. I wish to see no new powers drawn to the general government; but I confess I rejoice in whatever tends to strengthen the bond that unites us; and encourages the hope that our union may be perpetual. And, therefore, I cannot but feel regret at the expression of such opioions as the gentleman has avowed; because I think their obvious tendency is to weaken the bond of our connexion. I know that there are some persons in the part of the country from which the hon. member comes, who habitually speak of the union in terms of indifference, or even of disparagement. The hon. member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. They significantly declare, that it is time to calculate the value of the union, and their aim seems to be to enumerate and to magnify all the evils real and imaginary, which the government under the union produces.

The tendency of all these ideas and sentiments is obviously to bring the union into discussion, as a mere question of present and temporary expediency—nothing more than a mere matter of profit and loss. The union


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/49

Rh the mighty rocks of Peyredeyre that begin its finest achievements. The eruptions that took place in this part were later than those which had obstructed it in itsinfancy. They entirely blocked the exit, and the Loire was dammed back in the basin of Le Puy, where it spread into an extensive lake. In time, however, it succeeded in sawing a way through. The railway from Le Puy to St. Etienne runs through the furrow that it formed. The barrier had been thrown up from both sides by the meeting and overlapping of lava floods from the volcanoes of Velay in the west, and those of the Vivarais in the east, and the beds were piled one upon another. It is marvellous to see the passage which the river forced for itself through these super-incumbent beds, from Peyredeyre to La Voute. The rock at this latter place sustains a restored castle belonging to the Duke of Polignac.

Below this point the gorge ceases for a while, till another barricade was reached below Vorey, where the Arzon enters the Loire.

There the river struggles between the Miaune and the Gerbizon, in the defiles of Chambon and Chamalières. The beds of phonolith of these mountains, which formerly corresponded unbrokenly, are now separated by a gash 1,500 feet deep, which the waters of the Loire have achieved, cutting through the lava to the granite beneath.

The Borne, on which is Le Puy, also traverses gorges, notably that of Estreys, and passes the well-preserved castle of the Leaguer Baron de S. Vidal. Then it sweeps under the pillared rocks of Espaly and slides beneath l'Aiguilhe. Perhaps as interesting an example as any of the way in which an insignificant stream has


text:
Page:Niles' Weekly Register, v37.djvu/454

438 to be preserved while it suits local and temporory purposes to preserve it; and to be sundered whenever it shall be found to thwart such purposes. Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. It is only regarded as a possible means of good; or, on the other hand as a possible means of evil. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. Sir, I deprecate and deplore this tone of thought and feeling. I deem far otherwise of the union of the states, and so did the framers of the constitution themselves What they said I believe; fully and sincerely believe, that the union of the states is essential to the prosperity and safety of the states. I am a unionist, and in this sense, a national republican. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. Far, indeed, in my wishes, very far distant be the day, when our associated and fraternal stripes shall be severed asunder, and when that happy constellation under which we have risen to so much renown, shall be broken up and be seen sinking star after star, into obscurity and night!

Among other things the hon. member spoke of the public debt. To that he holds the public lands pledged, and has expressed his usual earnestness for its total discharge. Sir, I have always voteed for every measure for reducing the debt, since I have been in congress I wish it paid because it is a debt; an,so far, is a charge upon industry of the country and the finances of the government. But,sir, I have observed, that, whenever the subject of the public debt is introduced into the senate, a morbid sort of fervor is manifested in regard to it, which I have been sometimes at a loss to, understand. The debt is not now large, and is in a course of most rapid reduction. A very few years will see it extinguished. Now I am not entirely able to persuade myself that it is not certain supposed incidental tendencies and effects of this debt, rather than its pressure and charge as a debt, that causes so much anxiety to get rid of it. Possibly it may be regarded as in some degree a tie, holding the different parts of the country together, by considerations of mutual interest. If this be one of its effects, the effect itself is, in my opinion, not to be lamented. Let me not be misunderstood. I would not continue the debt for the sake of any collateral or consequential advantage, such as I have mentioned. I only mean to say that that consequence itself is not one that I regret. At the same time, that if there are others who would or who do regret it, I differ from them.

As I have already remarked sir, it was one among the reasons assigned by the honorable member for his wish to be rid of the public lands altogether, that the public disposition of them and the revenues derived from them tends to corrupt the people. this, sir, I confess, passes my comprehension. These hands are sold at public auction, or taken up at fixed prices, to form farms and freeholds. Whom does this corrupt? According to the system of sales, a fixed proportion is every where reserved, as a fund for education. Does education corrupt? Is the schoolmaster a corrupter of youth? the spellig book. does it break down the morals of the rising generation and the holy scriptures, are they fountains of corruption? or if, in the exercise of a provident liberality, in regard to its own property as a great landed proprietor, and to high purposes of utility towards others, the government gives portions of these lands to the making of a canal; or the opening of a road, in the country where the lands themselves are situated, what alarming and overwhelming coruption follows from all this? Can there be nothing pure in government except the exercise of mere control? Can nothing be done without corruption, but the imposition of penalty and restraint? Whatever is positively beneficent, whatever is actively good whatever spreads abroad benefits and blessings which all can see and all can feel, whatever opens intercourse, augments population, enhances the value of property and diffuses knowledge—must all this be rejected and reprobated as a dangerous and obnoxious policy, hurrying us to the double ruin of a government, turned into despotism by the mere exercise of acts of beneficence, and of a people, corrupted beyond hope of rescue by the improvement of their condition?

The gentleman proceded, sir, to draw a frightful picture of the future. He spoke of the centuries that must elapse, before all the lands could be sold, and the great hardships that the states must suffer while the United States reserved to ilself, within their limits such large portions of soil, not liable to taxation. Sir, this is all, mostly imagination If these lands were leasehold property, if they were held by the United States on rent, there would be much in the idea. But they are wild lands, held only till they can be sold; reserved no longer than till somebody will take them up, at low prices.—As to their not being taxed, I would ask whether the states themselves, if they owned them, would tax them before sale? Sir, if in any case any state can shew that the policy of the United States retards her settlement, or prevents her from cultivating the land within her limits she shall have my vote to alter that policy. But I look upon the public lands as a public fund, and that we are no more authorized to give them away gratuitously than to give away gratuitously the money in the treasury. I am quite aware that the sums drawn annually from the western states make a heavy drain upon them, but that is unavoidable. For that very reason, among others, I have always been inclined to pursue towards them a kind and most liberal policy. But I am not at liberty to forget at the same time, what is due to other states, and to the solemn engagements under which the government rests.

I come now, Mr. President, to that part of the gentleman's speech, which has been the main occasion of my addressing the senate. The East! the obnoxious, the rebuked the always reproached east!! We have come in, sir, on this debate, for even more than a common share of accusation and attack. If the honorable member from South Carolina was not our original accuser, he has yet recited the indictment against us, with the air and tone of a public prosecutor. He has summoned us to plead on our arraignment; and he tells us we are charged with the crime of a narrow and selfish policy; of endeavoring to restrain emigration to the west, and, having that object in view, of maintaining a steady opposition to western measures and western interests. And the cause of all this narrow and selfish policy the gentleman finds in the tariff I think he called it the accursed policy of the tariff. This policy the gentleman tells us, requires multitudes of dependent laborers, a population of paupers, and that it is to secure these at home that the east opposes whatever may induce to western emigration. Sir, I rise to defend the east. I rise to repel, both the charge itself, and the cause assigned for it. I deny that the east has, at any time, shown an illiberal policy towards the west. I pronounce the whole accusation to be without the least foundation in any facts, existing either now, or at any previous time. I deny it in the general, and I deny each and all its particulars. I deny the sum total, and I deny the retail. I deny that the east has ever manifested hostility to the west and I deny that she. has adopted any policy that would naturally have led her in such a course. But the tariff! the tariff!! Sir, I beg to say, in regard to the east that the original policy of the tariff is not hers whether it be wise or unwise. New England is not its author. If gentlemen will recur to the tariff of 1816, they will find that that was not carried by New England votes. It was truly more a southern than an eastern measure. And what votes carried the tariff of 1824? Certainly, not those of New England. It is known to have been made matter of reproach against Massachusetts that she would not aid the tariff of 1824, and a selfish motive was imputed to her for that also. In point of fact, it is true that she did, indeed, oppose the tariff of 1824. There were more votes in favor of that law in the house of representatives not only in each of a majority of the western states, but even in Virginia herself also, than in Massachusetts. It was literally forced upon New England and this shows how groundless bow void of all probability any charge must be, which imputes to her hostility to the growth of the western states as naturally flowing from a cherished policy of her own. But leaving all conjectures about causes and motives, I go at once to the fact, and I meet it with one broad, comprehensive, and emphatic negative. I deny, that in any part of her history at any period of the government or in relation to any leading object, New England has manifested such hostility as is charged upon her. On the contrary, I maintain that, from the day of the cession of the territories by the states to congress, no


text:
Page:Niles' Weekly Register, v37.djvu/455

Rh portion of the country has acted either with more liberality or more intelligence on the the subject of the western lands in the new states, than New England. This statement though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. Let us look at the historical facts. So soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government and disposition of the territory—the country was to be governed. This, for the present it was obvious must be by some territorial system of administration. But the soil, also was to be granted and settled. Those immense regions, huge enough almost for an empire were to be appropriated to private ownership. How was this best to be done? What system for sale and disposition should be adopted? Two modes for conducting the sales presented themselves; the one southern, and the other a northern mode. It would be tedious sir, here, to run out these different systems into all their distinctions, and to contrast their opposite results. That which was adopted, was the northern system, and is that which we now see in successful operation in all the new states. That which was rejected, was the system of warrants, surveys, entry, and location such as prevails south of the Ohio. It it not necessary to extend these remarks into invidious comparisons. This last system, is that which, as has been emphatically said, has shingled over the country to which it was applied with so many conflicting titles and claims. Every body acquainted with the subject, knows how easily it leads to speculation and litigation—two great calamities in a new country. From the system actually established, these evils are banished. Now, sir in effecting this great measure, the first important measure on the whole subject, New England acted with vigor and effect, and the latest posterity of those who settled northwest of the Ohio, will have reason to remember with gratitude her patriotism and her wisdom. The system adopted was her own system. She knew, for she had tried and proved its value. It was the old fashioned way of surveying lands before the issuing of any title papers, and then of inserting accurate and precise descriptions in the patents or grants, and proceding with regular reference to metes and bounds.—This gives to original titles derived from government a certain and fixed character; it cuts up litigation by the roots, and the settler commences his labors with the assurance that he has a clear title. It is easy to perceive, but not easy to measure, the importance of this in a new country. New England gave this system to the west and while it remains, there will be spread over all the west, one monument of her intelligence in matters of government, and her practical good sense.

At the foundation of the Constitution of these new, northwestern states, we are accustomed, sir, to praise the lawgivers of antiquity; we help to perpetuate the fame of Solon and Lycurgus. but I doubt whether one single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has produced effects of more distinct, marked, and lasting character then the ordinance of '87. That instrument, was drawn by NATHAN DANE, then, and now a citizen of Massachusetts. It was adopted, as I think I have understood, without the slightest alteration, and certainly it has happened to few men to be the authors of a political measure of more large and enduring consequence. It fixed forever, the character of the population in the vast regions north-west of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to rear up any other than free men. It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. Sir, I should fear the rebuke of no intelligent gentleman of Kentucky, were I to ask whether if such an ordinance could have been applied to his own state, while it yet was a wilderness, and before Boon had passed the gap of the Alleghany, he does not suppose it would have contributed to the ultimate greatness of that commonwealth? It is, at any rate, nor to doubted, that where it did apply it has produced an effect not easily to be described, or measured in the growth of the states, and the extent and increase of their population.

Now, Sir, this great measure, again was carried by the north and by the north alone. There were, indeed, individuals elsewhere favorable to it, but it was supported as a measure, entirely by the votes of the northern states. If New England had been governed by the narrow and selfish views now ascribed to her, this very measure was, of all others the best calculated to thwart her purposes. It was, of all means of rendering certain a vast emigration from her own population to the west. She looked to that consequence only to disregard it. She deemed the regulation a most useful one to the states that would spring up on the territory and advantageous to the country at large. She adhered to the principle of it perseveringly, year after year until it was finally accomplished.

Leaving then, Mr. President, these two great and leading measures and coming down to our own times what is there in the history of recent measures of government that exposes New England to this accusation of hostility to western interests? I assert, boldly, that in all measures conductive to the welfare of the west since my aquaintance here, no part of the country has manifested a more liberal policy. I beg to say sir, that I do not state this with a view of claiming for her any special regard on that account. Not at all. She does not place her of support of measures on the ground of favor conferred—far otherwise. Wbat she has done has been consonant to her view of the general good, and therefore she has done it. She has sought to make no gain of it; on the contrary individuals may have felt undoubtedly some natural regret, at finding the relative importance of their own states diminished, by the growth of the west. But New England has regarded that as in the natural course of things and has never complained of it. Let me see sir, any one measure favorable to the west which has been opposed by New England since the government bestowed its attention to these western improvements. Select what you will, if it be a measure of acknowledged utility I answer for it it will be found that not only were New England votes for it, but that New England votes carried it. Will you take the Cumberland road? who has made that? Will you take the.: Portland canal, whose support carried that bill? Sir, at what period beyond the Greek kalends could these measures or measures like these, have been accomplished, had they depended on the votes of the southern gentlemen? Why, sir, we know that we must have waited till the constitutional notions of those gentlemen had undergone an entire change. Generally speaking, they have done nothing and can do nothing. All that has been effected, has been done by the votes of reprobated New England. I undertake to say, that if you look to the votes on any one of these measures and strike out from the list of ayes the names of New England members it will be found that in every case, the south would then have voted down the west and the measure would have failed. I do not believe that any instance can be found where this is not strictly true. I do not believe that one dollar has been expended for these purposes beyond the mountains, which could have been obtained without cordial co-operation and support from New England.

Sir, I put the question to the west itself. Let gentlemen who have sat here ten years, come forth and declare by what aids, and by whose votes, they have succeeded in measures deemed of essential importance to their part of the country. To all men of sense and candor in or out of congress, who have any knowledge upon the subject, New England may appeal for refutation of the reproach now attempted to be cast upon her, in this respect.

I take liberty to repeat, that I make no claim on behalf New England, or an account of that which I have not stated. She does not profess to have acted out of favor, for it would not become her so to have acted. She solicits for no especial thanks; but in the consciousness of having done her duty in these things, uprightly and honestly, and with a fair and liberal spirit, be assured she will repel, whenever she thinks the occasion calls for it, groundless imputation of partiality and selfishness.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/339

 Rh reference is made to the fairy tales of the surrounding nations. Saxons, Roumanians, (Wallachians), Serbians or Bulgarians, Albanians and Greeks, represent as many distinct nationalities as names, and still the Székelys, otherwise totally differing from each of these, have the same tales in common. Only the theory that tales are borrowed from one nation and transmitted to another can explain this mysterious coincidence.

Herein lies the paramount value of the folk-lore of the Hungarian, Székely, and other similar nationalities. They throw a flood of light on the problems of ethno-psychology.

M. Gaster.

I.—.

There was once a king. This king had but one only son; but, the good God alone knows why, he was so furiously angry with him one day that he drove him out of the house to go where he liked—up or down! In vain the queen took his part, in vain she made the whole village weep for the dear child torn from her heart; there was no pardon; the little prince must go away.

The prince set out then very sadly; he went strolling on over hill and dale. As he goes, he hears someone, very much out of breath, running behind him, and calling out his name. He turns back, and sees a servant from the court. He has brought him a watch, sent after him by his dear mother. The prince took the watch, put it in his pocket, and then went on.

As he goes along he takes the watch out and opens the case, and then! some invisible being, or something, speaks, and says: "What are your commands, my soul, my dear good master?"

The prince was astonished at this, very much so; his astonishment was so great that he did not say a single word, but put the watch back in his pocket.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/340

 332 All at once the road branched off in two directions; the one leading to a huge great wood, the other to a large city. He considered which he should take. It would be well to go into the tow^n and pass the night there, but he had not a single stray kreuzer. He therefore went towards the wood, thinking that he can at least make a fire there, perhaps, too, he will be able to catch a bird, then he will gather strawberries and mushrooms, and have such a supper that the king himself can't do better.

He went into the wood, therefore, and there chose out a great tree, under which he sat down. He takes out his watch to see what o'clock it is, then that invisible being, or something, speaks again, and asks him, "What are your commands, my soul, my dear good master?"

Thus answered the prince: Well, if you want me to give commands, then make me something to eat, and out of the ground too."

Scarcely had the prince looked round when there before him stood a table spread with all sorts of good dainty dishes. The little prince fell to manfully; then he lay down in the soft grass, and did not get up till the sun shone on his stomach.

He started off again and went strolling on until he came to such a great high mountain that it was impossible to see either the end, or the length, or the top of it He looked right, he looked left, he looked up, he went round about, this way and that, but he could not find any means of getting over it in any way, it was so lofty and so steep. But he looked and looked about until he found a hole which led into the mountain. He entered this hole, but he had hardly gone the distance of a good gun-shot when he got into such intense darkness that he could not move either backwards or forwards. He puts his hand in his pocket to get a match, and while he was feeling for a match the watch touched his hand, and he took it out.

"What are your commands, my soul, my dear good master?" asked the genius again.


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/50

24 overmastered all difficulties may be seen in the Valley of Ceyssac. The rill flows into the Borne at an acute angle against the current. The valley was choked with a mass of tufa ejected from La Denise, and the current was arrested in its downward course. The stream then formed a lake that rose till it overflowed the dam in two places, leaving between them a prong of somewhat harder rock. When the water had poured for a considerable time over the left-hand lip, and it had worn this down to the depth of about seventy feet, it all at once abandoned this mode of outlet and concentrated its efforts on the right-hand portion of the barrier, where it found that the tufa was less compact, and it sawed this down till it reached its present level, leaving the prong of rock in the middle rising precipitously out of the valley with the water flowing below it, but attached to the mountain-side by the neck it had abandoned. The Polignacs seized on the fang of tufa and built a castle on the top, only to be reached by steps cut in the face of the rock; and the villagers covered the neck with their houses. They then proceeded to scoop out a great vault in the body of the living rock, blocked the entrance with a wall in which is inserted a pretty Romanesque doorway, and so provided themselves with a parish church at very little expense. On a saddle overhead they constructed a belfry for three bells.

In no part of Europe can be studied with greater facility the process of valley formation, for here that process is comparatively recent. That which has been accomplished elsewhere in hundreds of thousands of years, has here been achieved in thousands only. The great elevation of the valley, and the fact that it lies open to the north cause it to be a cold country. The


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/341

 Rh "I command you", said the prince, "to get me some light from somewhere."

As he gave the command, a lighted wax-taper was already in his hand, and by its light he strolled further on. He went deeper and deeper in, until all at once the passage began to widen out. There he found a house. He pushed the door open, and there finds an old dwarf. He greets him in a becoming manner.

"God give you good day, my dear Mr. father; pray how are you, how does your precious health serve you?"

"Good day", answered the dwarf; "I am well; but who are you, and what sort of business are you upon that you come here, where not even a mouse comes?"

The prince told the story of his sad fate with very bitter lamentations, so that the dwarf's heart was sad for him. He encouraged and comforted him, telling him not to grieve at all, for he will procure him just such a place as the one he has left. Then he told him that beyond the mountain there was a powerful but good-hearted king; he, too, had had an only son, but he had been lost in the wars. Now, if he will go to this king, who will soon be killed by grief, and will say that he is his lost son, the king would grieve no more, and he would not be a world-wanderer.

The prince resolved upon this, and the dwarf carefully instructed him what he was to say to the king. "Say that you are called Paul, that you left home seven years ago, and did not write because you were taken prisoner, and kept in such grievous captivity that you were unable either to write a letter or send a message. Then ask this, too, whether the three little sisters whom you left alive at the time of your departure are still living."

The prince thanked him much for his good advice, took leave of the dwarf, and with that set off out of the mountain. When he got out he took out his watch and gave this command to the genius: "Take me to the other side


text:
Page:Niles' Weekly Register, v37.djvu/456

440 The gentleman alluded to a report of the late secretary of the treasury, which, according to his reading or construction of it, recommended what he calls the tariff policy, or a branch of that policy; that is, the restraining of emigration to the west, for the purpose of keeping hands at home, to carry on the manufactures. I think sir, that the gentleman misapprehended the meaning of the secretary in the interpretation given to his remarks. I understand him only as saying, that since the low price of lands at the west acts as a constant and standing bounty to agriculture, it is, on that account the more reasonable, to provide encouragement for manufactures. But, sir, even if the secretary, observation were to he understood as the gentleman understands it it would not be a sentiment borrowed from any New England source.—Whether it be right or wrong, it does not originate in that quarter.

In the course of these remarks, Mr. President, I have spoken of the supposed desire, on.the part of the Atlantic states to check, or at least not to hasten, western emigration, as a narrow policy. Perhaps I ought to have qualified the expression, because, sir, I am now about to quote the opinions of one, to whom I would impute no thing narrow. I am now about to refer you to the language of a gentleman of much and deserved distinction, now a member of the other house, and occupying a prominent situation there. The gentleman, sir is from South, Carolina. In 1825, a debate arose in the house of representatives, on the subject of the western road. It happened to me to take some part in that debate, I was answered by the honorible gentleman to whom I have alluded, and I replied. May I be pardoned sir, If I read part of this debate.

"The gentleman from Massachusetts has urged," said Mr. McDuffey., "as one leading reason why the government should make roads to the west, that these roads have a tendency to settle the public lands; that they increase the inducement to settlement, and that this is a national object. Sir, I differ entirely from his views on the subject. I think that the public lands are settling quite fast enough; that our people need want no stimulus to urge them thither; but want rather a check, at least on that artificial tendency to western settlement, which we have created by our own laws.

"That gentleman says that the great object of government, with respect to those lands, is not to make them a source of revenue, but to get them settled. What would have been thought of this argument in the old thirteen states? It amounts to this, that those states are to offer a bonus of their own impoverishment, to create a vortex to swallow up our floating population. Look sir, at the present aspect of the southern states. In no part of Europe will you see the same indications of decay. Deserted villages—houses falling to ruin—impoverished lands thrown out of cultivation. Sir, I believe that if the public lands had never been sold, the aggregate amount of the net total wealth would have been greater at this moment. Our population, if concentrated in the old states, and not ground down by tariffs, would have been more prosperous and more wealthy. But every inducement has been held out to them to settle in the west, until our population has become sparse, and then the effects of this sparseness are now to be counteracted by another artificlal system. Sir, I say if there is any object worthy the attention of this government, it is a plan which shall limit the sale of the public lands. It those lands were sold according to their real value, be it so. But while the government continues as it now does, to give them away, they will draw the population of the older states and still farther increase the effect which is already distressingly felt and which must go to diminish the value of all those states possess. And this, sir, is held out to us as a motive for granting the present appropriation. I would not, indeed, prevent the formation of roads on these considerations but I certainly would not encourage it. Sir, there is an additional item in the account of the benefits which this government has conferred on the western states. It is the sale of the public lands at the minimum price. At this moment we are selling to the people of the west, lands at one dollar and twenty-five cents, which are worth fifteen, and which would sell at that price if the markets were not glutted."

"Mr Webster observed, in reply, that the gentleman from South Carolina had mistaken him, if he supposed that it was his wish so to hasten the sales of the public lands, as to throw them into the hands of purchasers who would sell again. His idea only went as far as this; that the price should be fixed as low as as not to prevent the settlement of the lands yet not so low as to prompt speculators to purchase. Mr. W. observed that he could not at all concur with the gentleman from South Carolina, in wishing to restrain the laboring classes of population in the eastern states from going to any part of our territory, where they could better their condition; nor did he suppose such an idea was any where entertained. The observations of the gentleman had opened to him new views of policy on the subject, and he thought he now could perceive why some of our states continued to have such bad roads; it must be for purpose of preventing people from going out of them. The gentleman from South Carolina supposes; that if our population had been confined to the old thirteen states, the aggregate wealth of the country would have been greater than it now is. But sir, it is an error, that the increase of the aggregate of the national wealth, is the object chiefly to be pursued by government. The distribution of the national wealth is an object quite as important as its increase. He was not surprised that the old states, not increasing in population so fast as was expected (for he believed nothing like a decrease was pretended) should be an idea by no means agreeable to gentlemen from those states. We are all reluctant in submitting to the loss of relative importance—but this was nothing more than the the natural condition of a country densely populated in one part, and possessing in another a vast tract of unsettled lands. The plan of the gentleman went to reverse the order of nature, vainly expecting to retain men within a small and comparatively unproductive territory "who have all the world before them whose to choose". For his own part he was in favor of letting population take its own course; he should experience no feeling of mortification if any of his constituents liked better to settle on the Kansas or the Arkansas,or the lord knows where, within our territory; let them go,and be happier if they could. The gentleman says, our aggregate of wealth would have been greater if our population had been restrained within the limit of the old states, but does he not consider population to be wealth?, And has not this been increased by the aettlement of a new and fertile country? Such a country present the most alluring of all prospects to a young and laboring man; it gives him a freehold—it offers to him weight and respectability in society; and above all, it presents to him a prospect of a permanent provision for his children. Sir, these are inducements which never were resisted, and never will be; and were the whole extent of country filled with population up to the Rocky Mountains, these inducements would carry that population forward to the shores of the Pacific ocean. Sir, it is in vain to talk; individuals will seek their own good, and not any artificial aggregate of the national wealth—a young, enterprising and hardy agriculturalist can conceive of nothing better to him than plety of good, cheap land."

Sir, with the reading of these extracts I leave the subject. The senate will bear me witness that I am not accustomed to allude to local opinions, nor to compare nor contrast different portions of the country. I have often suffered things to pass which I might properly enough have considered as deserving a remark, without any observation. But I have felt it my, duty on this occasion to vindicate the state I represent from charges and imputations on her public character and conduct, which I know to be undeserved and unfounded—If advanced elsewhere, they might be passed, perhaps, without notice. But whatever is said here, is supposed to be entitled to public regard, and to deserve public attention—it derives importance and dignity from the place where it is uttered. As a true representative of the state which has sent me here, it is my duty, and a duty which I shall fulfill, to place her history and her conduct, her honor and her character, in their just and proper light, so often as I think an attack is made upon her, so respectable as to deserve to be repelled.

Mr. W. concluded by moving the indefinite postponement of the resolution. END OF VOLUME THIRTY-SEVEN


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/342

 334 of this mountain, to the king whose only son was lost while soldiering."

"Good, my soul, my dear good master", said the genius, "only shut your eyes."

The prince shut his eyes, and felt that his feet did not touch the ground, and that he was flying as quick as thought. But this did not last long; again his feet touched the ground, and then the genius said:

"Now open your eyes!"

The prince opened them and looked round; and then—behold a wonder!—he was standing before the gateway of a palace, which was even more splendid than his father's. When he had taken a good look round at the palace and its environs, he pushed the gate open and went at once to the king. He did not trouble himself much, to be sure, but fell upon the king's neck at once, embraced him and kissed him, saying, "My precious dear good father, my illustrious father, my lord, I have not seen you for just seven years, and I began to think I should never see you again in this life!"

The king was amazed and astounded, looked at the boy from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot, before, behind, and every way, but still he could not exactly recognise him as his own dear son. However, he answered all questions in such a way that the king distrusted him no longer, and in his great joy he made such a feast that even the Wallachian parson had wine instead of brandy with his puliszka and even the lame began to dance.

All three princesses were living, and the prince thought it would be a good thing to present his "sisters" with some handsome gift. He took out his watch and ordered the genius to bring the three girls three bouquets of golden flowers, such as human eye had never seen. Not an hour had passed, when all three golden bouquets were there. He sent them to the rooms of the three young ladies as


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/343

 Rh secretly as possible, so that one knew nothing about the other.

Well, time waxes and wanes. One evening there was a great ball at the royal palace, and the youngest princess placed the beautiful golden bouquet in her bosom. Then, all at once, there was such a brilliant light that they might just as well have put out the wax candles. The elder princesses did not bring their bouquets, and each thought that their sister had stolen hers. They set upon her to make her give back their flowers.

"I shall certainly not give them up!" said the little princess. "If you have any too, fetch them out; they are sure to be where you put them."

At this both the girls run away, and come back each with a golden bouquet. And then there was such a flood of light that not even the sun could have shone more brightly.

News of this went through the whole land; everyone talked of nothing but the wonderful golden bouquets. The king could not praise his son enough for having thought of his sisters even in his captivity, and for having managed to be so economical as to be able to buy three golden bouquets. But the major-domo shook his head, and said to the king:

"Now, my illustrious king, don't be angry, but there is some diablerie in this, and I wager that if your Majesty commands that a golden bridge shall be built from your Majesty's palace to my palace by to-morrow morning, the duke will do this, too."

The king laughed the major-domo to scorn, but the latter persisted, until at last he promised to put his son to the test.

The king had his son up, and told him of his desire. He was an old man, but he liked what was fine, and he thought that, as a person who had seen the world, he would perhaps know some possible way of building a golden bridge.


text: Niles' Weekly Register/Volume 37/Number 26/Debate in the Senate


text:
Author:George Sydenham Clarke

Works

 * Practical Geometry and Engineering Drawing (1875)
 * The Elements of Graphic Statics (1876)
 * The Principles of Graphic Statics (1880)
 * Fortification (1890)
 * The Navy and the Nation (1897)
 * Imperial Defense (1897)
 * Russia's Sea-power (1898)
 * India and The War (1915)
 * My Working Life (1927)
 * Studies of an Imperialist (1928)

 * (Military Operations, 1882-1885)
 * (Military Operations, 1882-1885)

title: Author:George Sydenham Clarke


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/53

Rh high tableland is swept by the winds, of which the most dreaded is that of the south, le vent blanc, bringing with it tempest that devastates the harvest.

To this fact is due the creation of the great industry of the land–lacemaking.

In feudal times Le Velay was a small province inaccessible for half the year, obliged accordingly to depend on itself for its existence. Auvergne, Forez, the Vivarais circumscribed it; these were rich provinces. Moreover, the Velaviens had to pay tax and tithe and toll to the barons, the clergy, the king. Such burdens might be borne elsewhere with a grumble, but here they ate into the sinews of life, unless the culture of the soil were supplemented from some other source. And it was precisely this that created the industry of Le Velay–lacemaking.

So soon as the first snows appeared, the men abandoned their farms and cottages, and went, some to Le Puy, where they occupied an entire quarter, and gained their livelihood as tapsters, farriers, weavers, carpenters, pin-makers, etc., or else departed for Lyons, Nîmes Montpellier, and Toulouse, to work as masons. All the women of the country pressed into Le Puy. There they formed congregations under the name and


text: Index:Webster and Hayne's Celebrated Speeches.djvu


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Duet

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Duet


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Duenna

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Duenna


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Harvester

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Harvester


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/31

 of a dignitary of the church. The ‘Chemical Essays’ reached a seventh edition in 1800. The most notable essays are (1) On ‘the Degrees of Heat at which Water … Boils’ (1781), describing an experiment on the boiling of water in a closed flask nearly free from air, which has become classical; (2) ‘On Pit-coal’ (1781), suggesting the condensing of the volatile products from coke-ovens, an operation which has recently become of great industrial importance; (3) on ‘the smelting of Lead Ore’ (1782), suggesting the condensation of lead fume, and of the sulphurous acid produced in the roasting of sulphide ores; (4) ‘On Zinc’ (1786). In 1787 government consulted him about improvements in gunpowder; his advice is said to have resulted in a saving of 100,000l. a year.

On entering upon the duties of the divinity chair, Watson frankly admits that he ‘knew as much of divinity as could reasonably be expected of a man whose course of studies had been directed to, and whose time had been fully occupied in, other pursuits.’ Neglecting systematic and historical theology, he devoted himself to biblical studies, recognising no authority but the New Testament. His professorship connected him officially with the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; he refused to contribute to it, believing its agents ‘more zealous in proselytising dissenters to episcopacy than in converting heathens to christianity’ (Letter to Maseres, 11 Oct. 1777). To the agitation for relief of the clergy from subscription, promoted by (1705–1787) [q. v.] and [q. v.], he did not give his name. He printed, however, ‘A Letter … by a Christian Whig’ (1772, 8vo), demurring to the expediency of exacting any subscription beyond a declaration of belief in the scriptures, and placed a copy in the hands of every member of the House of Commons on 5 Feb. 1772, the day before the debate on the clerical petition. ‘A Second Letter … by a Christian Whig’ (1772, 8vo), dealing with the subscription at graduation, was inscribed to Sir [q. v.], the advocate of the clerical petition, whom Watson did not personally know. The two letters were not acknowledged as his till 1815. Apart from expediency, he defended the right of every church to require uniformity of doctrinal profession, in ‘A Brief State of the Principles of Church Authority’ (1773, 8vo, anon.). This he repeated as a charge at Llandaff in June 1813. He felt more confidence in his views when he found they were those of (1676–1761) [q. v.]

At the end of 1773 he was presented to ‘a sinecure rectory’ in the diocese of St. Asaph, which he exchanged early in 1774 for a prebend at Ely, owing both pieces of preferment to the good offices of, third duke of Grafton [q. v.], then chancellor of the university. His university sermon on 29 May 1776, on ‘The Principles of the Revolution Vindicated’ (Cambridge, 1776, 4to; several editions), gave lasting offence at court, and interfered, Watson thought, with his just promotion. (afterwards first Baron Ashburton) [q. v.] said ‘it contained just such treason as ought to be preached once a month at St. James's.’ Several pamphlets appeared in reply. Watson was told the sermon prevented his appointment as provost of Trinity College, Dublin, but this is chronologically impossible [see }, (1724–1794)].

Later in the year he published his ‘Apology for Christianity … letters … to Edward Gibbon’ (1776, 12mo), the result of ‘a month's work in the long vacation,’ undertaken to meet the challenge of Sir (1744–1836) [q. v.] He sent Gibbon a copy before publication; courteous letters (2 and 4 Nov.) passed between them, and in Gibbon's ‘Vindication’ (January 1779) Watson is mentioned with marked respect, as ‘the most candid of adversaries.’ As a popular antidote to Gibbon's fifteenth chapter, the ‘Apology’ was widely welcomed, and has been constantly reprinted.

On 18 Oct. 1779 he was collated archdeacon of Ely, by his bishop, [q. v.], and in August Keene gave him the rectory of Northwold, Norfolk ( manuscript Athenæ Cantabr. Add. MS. 5883, p. 171). In February 1781 Charles Manners, fourth duke of Rutland [q. v.], who had been his pupil, and whose party he had aided in the Cambridgeshire election of 1780, presented him to the valuable rectory of Knaptoft, Leicestershire. He then resigned Northwold. A fever which attacked him in 1781 was attended with complications which left his health permanently impaired. In July 1782 the see of Llandaff was vacant by the translation of [q. v.] Grafton and Rutland made interest with (then Lord Shelburne, afterwards first Marquis of Lansdowne) [q. v.], and Watson was appointed. He was consecrated on 20 Oct. 1782. Owing to the meagreness of the revenues of the see, he was allowed to retain his other preferments (except the archdeaconry); he reckoned his whole emoluments at 2,200l. a year.

He at once drew up proposals for a redis-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/32

 of church revenues, with a view to equalising episcopal and improving parochial incomes. The scheme was printed (November 1782), and, against Shelburne's advice, published as ‘A Letter to Archbishop Cornwallis on the Church Revenues’ (1783, 4to). Except [q. v.], no bishop acknowledged its receipt. (1732–1811) [q. v.], who had written before against Watson, attacked the ‘Letter,’ as did others; (1711–1797) [q. v.] was one of the few who approved the plan. Watson returned to the subject in a speech (30 May) in the House of Lords.

To promote biblical study, Watson edited ‘A Collection of Theological Tracts’ (Cambridge, 1785, 6 vols. 8vo; 2nd edit. 1791), with a dedication to the queen. Of the twenty-four works here reprinted, some of the most important are by dissenting divines, [q. v.], Samuel Chandler, [q. v.], and (1694–1761) [q. v.] On the death of his friend Luther (11 Jan. 1786) he came in for an estate which realised 20,500l. After an illness and a visit to Bath, under medical advice he appointed (26 May 1787) [q. v.] as his deputy in the divinity chair, and took leave of the university.

In 1788 he joined his old schoolfellow William Preston (d. 1789), then bishop of Ferns and Leighlin, in restoring the Heversham schoolhouse, inscribing it to the memories of its founder and his father. Fixing his residence in Westmoreland, first at Dallam Tower, then at Calgarth Park, where he built a house (1789), he devoted himself to extensive plantations and improvement of waste lands. The Society of Arts awarded him a premium for his paper on waste lands (published in Hunter's Georgical Essays, 1805, vol. v.). Another paper (published in 1808) obtained the year before the gold medal of the board of agriculture. Wordsworth sneered at his ‘vegetable manufactory.’ He was often in London, and visited his diocese triennially, but frankly records his various efforts to obtain translation to a better. His ‘Considerations on the Expediency of Revising the Liturgy and Articles’ (1790, 8vo) was anonymous, but acknowledged in 1815.

By far the most popular of his writings was his ‘Apology for the Bible … Letters … to Thomas Paine’ (1796, 12mo). This is usually described as an answer to Paine's ‘Age of Reason’ (1794), which Watson had not seen. It is directed against Paine's ‘Second Part’ (1795), and especially against Paine's treatment of scripture, which Watson thought unworthy of his powers. The ‘Apology’ was eagerly read in America as well as in this country. In addition to very numerous reprints it has been abridged (1820, 8vo) by [q. v.], and translated into French (1829, 12mo) by Louis Theodore Ventouillac. Posthumous fragments of Paine's ‘Answer’ were published in New York (1810–24), and in part reprinted in London in 1837.

In his ‘Address to the People of Great Britain’ (1798, 8vo, 20 Jan.) Watson urged that the progress of events had rendered the vigorous prosecution of the war inevitable, and approved Pitt's imposition of the income-tax. The ‘Address’ went through fourteen editions, besides pirated reprints, and was widely distributed by the government. ‘A Reply’ (1798) by [q. v.] led to Wakefield's trial and imprisonment. Watson, who had exchanged courteous notes with Wakefield, affirms that he ‘took some pains to prevent this prosecution.’ He took no notice of the taunt that he had changed his principles, and followed up the topic of the ‘Address’ in a charge (June 1798) to his clergy. His speech in the lords (11 April 1799), advocating the union with Ireland, was attacked by [q. v.], who was fined and imprisoned for a breach of privilege. Watson had not seen the attack, and was on his way to Calgarth when the house took action.

While occupied in political and economic questions, Watson kept in view the interests of practical religion. To Wilberforce, whom he supported in his efforts against the slave trade, he communicated (1 April 1800) a scheme for twenty new churches in London with free sittings. When Freylinghausen's ‘Abstract … of the Christian Religion’ (1804, 8vo) was issued at the queen's order, with Bishop Porteus as editor, he wrote to Grafton (23 Oct.), ‘I have not my religion to learn from a Lutheran divine.’ He published in 1804 a tract in favour of Roman catholic emancipation, and wrote (27 March 1805) to remove the scruples of a lady about marrying into the Greek church. The defence of revealed religion was his frequent topic both in the pulpit and through the press.

In 1805 Sir Walter Scott was his guest at Calgarth. Rawnsley affirms that cockfighting was merrily pursued there by the bishop's sons. In October 1809 Watson had a slight paralytic attack, followed in April 1810 by another, which crippled his right hand. Despairing of completing a projected series of theological essays, in 1811 he ‘treated’ his ‘divinity as’ he ‘twenty-five years ago treated’ his ‘chemical papers.’ After October 1813 his health rapidly declined. He


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/54

26 age of some saint. Each of these congregations had its hall, and in this gathered the wives and daughters of the absent men, and spent their days and evenings in making pillow-lace, in singing, telling tales, and in gossip. There they remained working at their little squares with flying bobbins, till the spring sun brought back fathers and husbands and brothers, when the women put aside their bobbins and returned to their several farms.

Lacemaking was a flourishing business till the year 1547, when a sumptuary law was promulgated by the Parliament of Toulouse and sanctioned by the King, forbidding the wearing of lace by any save nobles, for the odd reason that there was no means of obtaining domestic servants in Le Velay, as every girl was a lace-maker.

Great consternation was caused by this edict. That same year a late frost smote the vines, corn was dear, and a pestilence broke out. In the midst of this discontent, Huguenot preachers appeared in the land, and they did their utmost to direct the disaffection of the people against the Church. Happily, S. Francis Regis arrived in Le Velay on a preaching mission, and speedily saw that the limitations imposed on the production of lace was the real grievance angering the people and inducing them to hit out blindly at all authority. He hurried to Toulouse and obtained the withdrawal of the law. He did more: his brethren of the Jesuit Order, incited by him, spread abroad the passion for lace in the New World, became in fact commis voyageurs for the industry, and thus opened out fresh fields for the produce. It is due to this that the memory of S. Francis Regis is still fragrant in the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/36

 , and published in 1783 (London, 4to; revised edition 1808 and 1839; French translation 1809). This remains useful as filling a gap between Prescott and Coxe.

Watson married, on 29 June 1757, Margaret Shaw, by whom he left five daughters.

[Chalmers's Biogr. Dict.; Conolly's Eminent Men of Fife; Anderson's Scottish Nation; Hew Scott's Fasti Eccles. Scoticanæ, ii. 400.]  WATSON, ROBERT (1746–1838), adventurer, was born at Elgin, the first, it would seem, of two Robert Watsons baptised there—a hirer's son on 29 June 1746, and a merchant's on 7 Aug. 1769. Certainly the latter could not have been ‘intimate with Washington,’ and been lamed by a wound in the American war of independence, ‘which gave him, on his retirement, the rank of a colonel, and some land, which he sold soon after.’ Returning to Scotland from America, the hirer's son graduated M.D., and then settled in London. He was secretary to Lord George Gordon at the time of the riots of 1780, and was afterwards president of the revolutionary Corresponding Society. He was arrested for conspiracy in 1796, lay two years and three months in Newgate, and was tried at the Old Bailey, but acquitted. A reward of 400l. being offered for his reapprehension, he ‘escaped by living in disguise in a lord's house in London, and got away by the interest of Lady M'D. in a Swedish ship, in which he was nearly taken on suspicion of being Thomas Hardy.’ In October 1798 the ‘Moniteur’ announced his arrival at Nancy as that of ‘Lord Walson [sic], écossais libre;’ and, going on to Paris, he issued an address to the British people, advocating a general rising and the reception of the French as deliverers. Lodging with Napoleon's forest-keeper, he was introduced to the consul, and gave him lessons in English; Napoleon made him principal of the restored Scots College, with three thousand francs a year. He held the post six years, and it must have been during this period that, in 1807, he presided at the St. Patrick's banquet to the Irishmen in Paris. He next went to Rome to cultivate cotton and indigo in the Pontine marshes, and so gain the prize of a hundred thousand francs offered by Napoleon on the importation of these articles to France being prevented by the English government. The scheme miscarried, and the ‘Chevalier Watson’ had again to turn teacher of English. One of his pupils between 1816 and 1819 was the German painter Professor Vogel von Vogelstein, who describes him as ‘a little lame man of about sixty years of age,’ and who painted the small portrait of him now in the Scottish Portrait Gallery at Edinburgh. At Rome in 1817 he purchased for 22l. 10s. from an attorney who had been confidential agent to Cardinal York two cartloads of manuscripts, relating chiefly to the two Jacobite rebellions. These, the ‘Stuart Papers,’ were, however, seized by the Vatican and finally delivered to the prince regent; Watson stated that he got 3,100l. from the English ministry, but he actually received 3,600l. In 1825 he wrote to an Elgin friend asking a loan of 100l., and describing himself as just returned from Greece, and as possessed of a valuable collection—Queen Mary's missal, Marshal Ney's baton, Napoleon's Waterloo carriage, &c. On 19 Nov. 1838 he strangled himself in a London tavern by twisting his neckcloth with a poker as with a tourniquet. It was deposed at the inquest that his body bore nineteen old wounds, and a Colonel Macerone testified to the truth of his statements to the tavern-keeper on the eve of his suicide. He is said to have married in 1793 Cecilia, widow of the sixth Lord Rollo, and sister of James Johnstone (1719–1800?) [q. v.], the Chevalier de Johnstone; but Rollo lived to marry a second wife. Watson, however, appears to have been connected by marriage with Johnstone, whose manuscripts he sold in 1820 to Messrs. Longmans [see art. ].

Watson's chief work is a ‘Life of Lord George Gordon, with a Philosophical Review of his Political Conduct’ (London, 1795, 8vo). He also edited in 1798 the ‘Political Works’ of Fletcher of Saltoun, with notes and a memoir; and in 1821 the Chevalier Johnstone's ‘Memoirs of the Rebellion of 1745.’ His answer to Burke's ‘Reflections’ is unidentified, and he seems never to have executed his proposed translation of the ‘De Jure Regni’ of George Buchanan, whom he styles ‘the father of pure republicanism.’

[Bishop A. P. Forbes of Brechin in Proceedings Soc. Antiquaries of Scotl. December 1867, pp. 324–34, based chiefly on information supplied by Professor Vogel von Vogelstein; ‘A Wild Career,’ by Andrew Lang, in Illustrated London News, 12 March 1892, with portrait; Hone's Table Book (1827), i. 738–45; Percy Fitzgerald's Life and Times of William IV (1884), i. 53; Alger's Englishmen in the French Revolution, 1889, pp. 271–2.]  WATSON, RUNDLE BURGES (1809–1860), captain R.N., eldest son of Captain Joshua Rowley Watson (1772–1810), was born in 1809. He entered the navy in November 1821, and was promoted to the rank of lieutenant on 7 Oct. 1829. He afterwards served on the coast of Portugal and on the


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Eckert, Max

ECKERT (Friedrich Eduard), Max, German geographer: b. Chemnitz 1868. He received his education in Löbau and Berlin; taught some time at Löbau and Leipzig and in 1903 became privatdozent at Kiel University. In 1907 he was appointed to the chair of geography in the Royal Technical High School of Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle). He has published ‘Schulatlas’ (45th ed., 1912); ‘Wesen und Aufgabe der Wirtschafts- und Verkehrsgeographie’ (1903); ‘Grundriss der Handelsgeographie’ (1905); 'Leitfaden der Handelsgeographie' (3d ed., 1911); ‘Neue Entwürfe für Erdkarten’ (1906); ‘Die Kartographie als Wissenschaft’ (1907); ‘The New Fields of Geography, especially Commercial Geography’ (1907); ‘Geographisches Praktikum,’ with Krümmel (1908); ‘Fortschritt in der geographischen Erschliessung unsern Kolonien’ (1908 et seq.); ‘Die Kartenprojektion’ (1910); ‘Deutsche Kulturgeographie’ (1912); ‘Wirtschaftsatlas der deutschen Kolonien’ (1912); ‘Die wirtschaftliche Bedeutung des Panama-Kanals’ (1913); ‘Die Metallverbreitung und Metallgewerbe der Welt’ (1913).


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/37

 North American station, till in November 1837 he was appointed to the Calliope frigate, with Captain (afterwards Sir Thomas) Herbert (1793–1861) [q. v.] After two years on the coast of Brazil the Calliope was sent to China, where she was actively employed during the first Chinese war. On 6 May 1841 Watson was promoted to the rank of commander, and was moved with Herbert to the Blenheim; and while in her was repeatedly engaged with the enemy, either in command of boats or landing parties. On 23 Dec. 1842 he was advanced to post rank, and the next day, 24 Dec., was nominated a C.B. From February 1846 to October 1849 he commanded the Brilliant, a small frigate, on the Cape of Good Hope station; and in December 1852 was appointed to the Impérieuse, a new 50-gun steam frigate, then, and for some years later, considered one of the finest ships in the navy. In 1854 she was sent up the Baltic in advance of the fleet, Watson being senior officer of the squadron of small vessels appointed to watch the breaking up of the ice, and to see that no Russian ships of war got to sea. It was an arduous service well performed. The Impérieuse continued with the flying squadron in the Baltic during the campaigns of 1854 and 1855. After the peace she was sent to the North American station, and returned to England and was paid off early in 1857. In June 1859 Watson was appointed captain-superintendent of Sheerness dockyard, where he died on 5 July 1860. He was married and left issue; his son, Captain Burges Watson, R.N., is now (1899) superintendent of Pembroke Dockyard.

[O'Byrne's Nav. Biogr. Dict.; Navy Lists; Gent. Mag. 1860, ii. 217.]  WATSON, SAMUEL (1663–1715), sculptor, was born at Heanor, Derbyshire, in December 1663. He executed some of the fine wood-carvings at Chatsworth, commonly attributed to Grinling Gibbons [q. v.] The dead game over the chimney piece in the great chamber is by his hand, and for this and other decorations in the same chamber in lime-tree wood, all completed in 1693, he received 133l. 7s. The trophy containing the celebrated pen over the door in the south-west corner room is likewise his work. He also carved the arms in the pediment of the west front in 1704; the stone carvings in the north front, finished in 1707, and other decorations both in wood and stone. Walpole says that ‘Gibbons had several disciples and workmen … Watson assisted chiefly at Chatsworth, where the boys and many of the ornaments in the chapel were executed by him’ (Anecdotes, ed. Wornum, p. 557). But it seems clear, since he made out his own bill for the above-mentioned works, that he executed them on his own account. He died at Heanor on 31 March 1715.

[Redgrave's Dict. of Artists.]  WATSON, THOMAS (1513–1584), bishop of Lincoln, was born in 1513 in the diocese of Durham, it is said at Nun Stinton, near Sedgefield. He was educated at St. John's College, Cambridge, proceeding B.A. in 1533–4 and M.A. in 1537. He is confused by Strype and others with John Watson (d. 1530), master of Christ's College, Cambridge [see under, 1520–1584]. About 1535 Watson was elected fellow of St. John's College, where he was for several years dean and preacher. There, writes Roger Ascham [q. v.], Watson was one of the scholars who ‘put so their helping hands, as that universitie and all students there, as long as learning shall last, shall be bound unto them’ (Scholemaster, ed. Mayor, p. 198). Besides Ascham, Watson had as friends and contemporaries Cheke, John Redman, Sir Thomas Smith, and others who led the revival of Greek learning at Cambridge. They would frequently discuss Aristotle's ‘Poetics’ and Horace's ‘Ars Poetica’ while Watson was writing his tragedy of ‘Absalom.’ Watson's fastidious scholarship would not allow him to publish it because in one or two verses he had used an anapaest instead of an iambus, though Ascham declared that ‘Absalom’ and George Buchanan's ‘Jephtha’ were the only two English tragedies that could stand ‘the true touch of Aristotle's precepts’ (ib. p. 207). Watson's play is said to have remained in manuscript at Penshurst, but it is not mentioned in the historical manuscripts commission's report on the papers preserved there (3rd Rep. App. pp. 227 sqq.); it has erroneously been assigned by Mr. Fleay and others to John Watson [q. v.], bishop of Winchester, and has also led to Thomas's confusion with Thomas Watson [q. v.], the poet (e.g., Works, ed. Grosart, i. 22, 23, 112, 218, ii. 83, 171, 290, where the references i. 112, 218, ii. 83, 290 are to the poet; and , Works, ed. Grosart, ii. 65, 73, iii. 187, where the last reference also is to the poet).

In 1543 Watson proceeded B.D., and in 1545 Stephen Gardiner [q. v.], bishop of Winchester, appointed him his chaplain and rector of Wyke Regis in Dorset; he is also said to have been presented to the vicarage of Buckminster, Leicestershire, in


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Chaperon

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Chaperon


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/38

 1547. He zealously abetted Gardiner in his dispute with the council as to its authority to make religious changes during Edward VI's minority, and is said to have been the medium of communication between the council and Gardiner. He is himself stated to have been imprisoned in the Fleet in 1547 for preaching at Winchester against two reformers, who thereupon complained to Somerset and Sir William Cecil, and to have been liberated with Gardiner on 6 Jan. 1547–8; but there is no record of his imprisonment before 4 Dec. 1550, when he was summoned before the privy council. He was in the Fleet prison in the following year, when he was called as a witness at Gardiner's trial, and examined as to whether the bishop had, in his sermon at St. Paul's on 29 June 1548, maintained the authority of the council or not; he avoided offence by declaring that he had been too far off to hear what Gardiner said (Lit. Rem. of Edward VI, p. cviii). In the same year he assisted Gardiner in preparing his ‘Confutatio Cavillationum,’ a second answer to Cranmer, which was published at Paris in 1552. On one occasion during the reign Watson's life is said to have been saved by John Rough [q. v.], a service to which Rough appealed in vain when brought before Watson and Bonner in Mary's reign. On 3 Dec. 1551 Watson was present at a private discussion at Sir Richard Morison's house on the question of the real presence; his argument is preserved in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (MS. 102, p. 259), and is abridged in Strype's ‘Life of Cheke’ (pp. 77–86).

On Mary's accession Watson became one of the chief catholic controversialists. On 20 Aug. 1553 he was selected to preach at Paul's Cross, when, to prevent a recurrence of the disturbances at Gilbert Bourne's sermon on the previous Sunday, many of the privy council and a strong guard were present. According to a contemporary but hostile newsletter, ‘his sermon was neither eloquent nor edifying … for he meddled not with the Gospel, nor with the Epistle, nor no part of Scripture’ (William Dalby in Harl. MS. 353, f. 141, where the writer proceeds to report ‘four or five of the chief points of his sermon;’, pp. 41, 332–3; Greyfriars Chron. p. 83; , Chron. ii. 29; Chron. Queen Jane, p. 18). Watson's services as a preacher were, however, constantly in request, and he always drew large audiences (, pp. 128, 131, 132, 166). On 10 May 1554 John Cawood published at London Watson's ‘Twoo notable Sermons made the thirde and fyfte Fridays in Lent last past before the Quenes highnes concerninge the reall presence of Christes body and bloode in the Blessed Sacramente.’ Ridley wrote some annotations on these sermons, which he sent to Bradford (, Works, ii. 207–8;, Works, pp. 538–40); and Robert Crowley [q. v.] in 1569 published ‘A Setting Open of the Subtyle Sophistrie of Thomas Watson … which he used in hys two Sermons … upon the reall presence,’ London, 4to. Crowley prints Watson's sermons passage by passage, with an answer to each (cf., Eccl. Mem. III. i. 115–25). When, in January 1557–8, convocation determined on the publication of a series of expositions of catholic doctrine somewhat similar to the ‘Homilies’ of 1547, Watson revised the sermons he had preached at court in the previous year and published them as ‘Holsome and Catholyke doctryne concerninge the Seven Sacraments of Chrystes Churche … set forthe in the maner of Short Sermons.’ The royal license to Robert Caley, the printer, was dated 30 April 1558 (Lansd. MS. 980, f. 302), and the first edition appeared in June following; a second edition followed on 10 Feb. 1558–9, and a third (described in the ‘British Museum Catalogue’ as the first) in the same month. They were reprinted by Father T. E. Bridgett in 1876 (London, 8vo).

Meanwhile, on 25 Sept. 1553, Watson was commissioned by Gardiner, as chancellor of Cambridge University, to inquire into the religious condition of the colleges (, Parker, i. 82–3), and three days later he was admitted master of St. John's, Lever having fled beyond seas; he was created D.D. in the following year. In the convocation that met at St. Paul's on 23 Oct. 1553 Watson strenuously upheld the Roman catholic interpretation of the real presence against James Haddon [q. v.] and others (part of the disputation is preserved in Harl. MS. 422, ff. 38 sqq.; cf., Works, p. 168; , Hist. iv. 78 sqq.). On 18 Nov. he was presented to the deanery of Durham in succession to Robert Horne (1519?–1580) [q. v.] In April 1554 he was sent to Oxford to dispute with Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, and on the 14th was incorporated D.D. in that university. He also took part in the proceedings against Hooper and Rogers, and is said to have urged Gardiner to arrest Dr. Edwin Sandys [q. v.], afterwards archbishop of York. He resigned the mastership of St. John's in May 1554, and on 28 Aug. 1556 was presented to the rectory of Bechingwall All Saints (, xv. 444). On 7 Dec. 1556 Mary issued a license for filling up the see of Lincoln, rendered vacant by the


text: Index:The Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster.djvu


text: Webster and Hayne's Celebrated Speeches/Mr. Webster's Speech on Mr. Foot's Resolution


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/57

Rh land, and that his figure so often adorns the pillows on which the lace is made, and that his tomb at Lalouvesc, where he died on December 31st, 1640, receives such streams of pilgrims.

The paralysis of the industry had hit more than the women of Le Velay. It had affected the colporteurs who brought to the market of Le Puy the linen thread out of which the lace was made. It is remarkable that at a time when roads were execrable, and means of communication faulty, the lacemakers were dependent on Holland for the material with which they worked. The linen of the district was too coarse to serve, and all that was used by them was derived from the Low Countries.

Lacemaking continues to be the main industry of the country. In fact, Haute Loire is the most important centre in the world. In the report on the lace at the Exhibition at Chicago, it is stated that the number of women there engaged on this dainty and beautiful art was 92,000, whereas in Belgium but 65,000 are thus employed.

In the most remote hamlets, in the most solitary cottages among the mountains, the societies of lace workers still gather, in summer before their doors, in winter in the cottage of la béate. The house of this woman is surmounted by a little bell-cott. One such is to be found in the smallest cluster of cottages. The house consists uniformly, on the ground floor, of one large room that serves as chapel, refuge, school, and place of assembly. In the upper story lives la Béate. This woman, whose official title is Dame de l'Instruction, fulfils many duties. In a land where the children are occupied in the fields throughout the summer, they can attend school only in winter, precisely when


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/39

 of John White (1511–1564) [q. v.] to Winchester; Watson was elected, and on the 24th of the same month was granted the temporalities of the see. The papal bull of confirmation was dated 24 March 1556–7, but the bishop was not consecrated until 15 August. In the interval Watson was one of the delegates appointed by Cardinal Pole to visit Cambridge University in January 1556–7; the visitation was disgraced by the trial and condemnation as heretics of the dead Bucer and Fagius, and by the exhumation and burning of their bodies (, Documents, 1828;, Annals of Cambridge).

Watson is said (, Elizabethan Clergy, 1898, p. 30) to have been the first sufferer for religion under Elizabeth, and to have been confined to his house for preaching an incautious sermon at Queen Mary's funeral; but Watson is here confused with John White, bishop of Winchester. Watson was absent through ill-health from the parliament which met in January 1558–9, but he took a prominent part in the debate on religion held in the choir of Westminster Abbey on the morning of 3 April. The conference broke down because Sir Nicholas Bacon, who presided, insisted that the Roman catholics should begin the discussion. They refused, and ‘the two good bishops [Watson and White], inflamed with ardent zeal for God, said most boldly that “they would not consent nor ever change their opinion from any fear.” They were answered that this was the will of the queen, and that they would be punished for their disobedience’ (Cal. State Papers, Venetian, 1558–80, No. 58). They were at once arrested and sent to the Tower (, Diary, p. 192;, Chron. ii. 144; Zurich Letters, i. 13; Acts P. C. vii. 78; State Papers, Dom. Eliz. iii. 52).

Camden's story, repeated by Strype and others, that the two bishops threatened to excommunicate Elizabeth, has been disputed by Roman catholic historians. The incident on which it is probably based is reported by the Venetian ambassador. White ‘said “the new method of officiating was heretical and schismatic.” Then they replied “is the queen heretical and schismatic?” And thus in anger they sent him back to the Tower’ (Cal. State Papers, Venetian, 1558–80, No. 82). In June Watson was released, and allowed ten days to decide whether he would take the new oath of supremacy. He refused, and on the 26th was deprived of the bishopric of Lincoln (, p. 201; Cal. State Papers, Simancas i. 79, 82, Venetian 1558–80 No. 91). He was again committed to the Tower on 20 May 1560. In May 1563 he was brought before the ecclesiastical commissioners, but remained steadfast in his refusal to take the oath. On 6 Sept. following he was handed over to the custody of Grindal, bishop of London, because of the plague, and a month later was transferred to the keeping of Coxe, the bishop of Ely. On 9 Jan. 1564–5 he was once more committed to the Tower (Acts P. C. vii. 183). On 5 July 1574, being then in the Marshalsea, on giving a bond not to ‘induce any one to any opinion or act to be done contrary to the laws established in the realm for causes of religion,’ he was transferred to the custody of his brother John Watson, a citizen of London (Lansd. MS. 980, f. 302; Acts P. C. viii. 264). Three years later the council accused him of abusing his liberty by suffering evil-disposed persons to resort to him, and by perverting them in religion, which confirms Dod's statement that, ‘while Bishop Watson lived, he was consulted and regarded as the chief superior of the English catholic clergy, and, as far as his confinement would permit, exercised the functions of his character.’ He was accordingly, on 28 July, committed to the custody of the bishop of Winchester, being allowed his own Roman catholic attendant, “uppon consideracion that it is less dainger to lett one already corrupted then a sound person to attend uppon him’ (ib. x. 16). In January 1578–9, at the bishop of Winchester's request, Watson was transferred to the keeping of the bishop of Rochester. He now entered into correspondence with Douai, and this, coupled with the invasion of the jesuits and missionary priests, led to severer measures against him. In August 1580 he was committed to close keeping at Wisbech Castle, where his remaining days were embittered by the quarrel between the jesuits and seculars which developed into the famous archpriest controversy. Watson died at Wisbech Castle on 27 Sept. 1584, and was buried in Wisbech parish church.

Watson was perhaps, after Tunstall and Pole, the greatest of Queen Mary's bishops. De Feria described him in 1559 as ‘more spirited and learned than all the rest.’ Godwin and Strype refer to him as ‘an austere, or rather a sour and churlish man.’ The austerity may be taken for granted, but the gloss is due to religious antipathy. Ascham spoke warmly of Watson's friendship for him, and bore high testimony to his scholarship. Besides the works already mentioned, Watson is credited with a translation of the first book of the ‘Odyssey,’ which is now lost, and a rendering of a sermon of St. Cyprian