text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/104

a deliberative assembly there are occasions when members wish to obtain information, or to do or to have done things that necessitate their making a request. Among these are the following, which will be treated separately: (a) Parliamentary Inquiry;

(b) Request for Information;

(c) Leave to Withdraw a Motion;

(d) Reading Papers;

(e) To be Excused from a Duty;

(f) For any other Privilege.

(a) Parliamentary Inquiry. A parliamentary inquiry, if it relates to a question that requires immediate attention, may be made while another has the floor, or may even interrupt a speech. It should not, however, be permitted to interrupt a speaker any more than is necessary to do justice to the inquirer. It yields to privileged motions, if they were in order when the inquiry was made, and it cannot be debated or amended or have any other subsidiary motion applied to it. The inquirer does not obtain the floor, but rises and says, "Mr. Chairman. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry." The chairman asks him to state his inquiry, and if he deems it pertinent, he answers it. Or, if the inquiry is made when another has the floor, and there is no necessity for answering it until the speech is finished, the chair may defer his answer until the speaker has closed his remarks. While it is not the duty of the chairman to answer


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/105

 of parliamentary law in general, it is his duty when requested by a member, to answer any questions on parliamentary law pertinent to the pending business that may be necessary to enable the member to make a suitable motion or to raise a point of order. The chairman is supposed to be familiar with parliamentary law, while many of the members are not. A member wishing to raise a point of order and yet in doubt, should rise to a parliamentary inquiry and ask for information. Or, for instance, he may wish to have the assembly act immediately on a subject that is in the hands of a committee, and he does not know how to accomplish it;— his recourse is a parliamentary inquiry.

(b) Request for Information. A request for information relating to the pending business is treated just as a parliamentary inquiry, and has the same privileges. The inquirer rises and says, "Mr. Chairman, I rise for information." or, "I rise to a point of information," whereupon the chair directs him to state the point upon which he desires information, and the procedure continues as in case of a parliamentary inquiry. If the information is desired of the speaker, instead of the chair, the inquirer upon rising says, "Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the gentleman a question." The chairman inquires if the speaker is willing to be interrupted, and if he consents, he directs the inquirer to proceed. The inquirer then

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


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/41

Rh the ruined chapel of S. Hilary remains. The people still reverence the pool, which they call the Father of Hail Storms, and till last century continued to cast offerings into the water. The visible result of the efforts of the good bishop so many centuries ago was no more than the construction of a chapel now in ruins.

It is probable enough that were the Lac de Bouchet drained, it would yield a rich spoil of coins. The lake is 2,800 feet across and 98 feet deep. In the morass occupying the bowl of Bar have been found a great many early coins, a necklace, and bracelets of bronze.

The loftiest of the Cevennes is Mézenc, on the frontier of Haute Loire. It is 5,750 feet high, and was at one time the central point of violent Plutonic eruptions. Several craters poured forth trachyte, phonolith, and basalt, which overflowed the granite, gneiss, clay deposits, and limestone to a great distance.

One of the craters, La Croix-des-Boutières, remains very distinct.

If the map be studied, it will be seen that there are two features in the water system of this region that merit notice.

In the first place, we have the Allier on the west, and


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/106

asks the question through the chair, thus, "Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the gentleman," etc. The reply is made in the same way, as it is not in order for members to address one another in the assembly. While each speaker addresses the chair, the chair remains silent during the conversation. If the speaker consents to the interruption the time consumed is taken out of his time. (c) Leave to Withdraw or Modify a Motion.* A request for leave to withdraw a motion, or a motion to grant such leave, may be made at any time before voting on the question has commenced, even though the motion has been amended. It requires no second. It may be made while incidental or subsidiary motions are pending, and these motions cease to be before the assembly when the question to which they are incidental or subsidiary is withdrawn. It yields to privileged motions, and cannot be amended or have any other subsidiary motion applied to it. It is undebatable. When it is too late to renew it, the motion to reconsider cannot be withdrawn without unanimous consent. When a motion is withdrawn, the effect is the same as if it had never been made. Until a motion is stated by the chairman, the mover may withdraw or modify it


text:
Page:Observations on an autograph of Shakespeare, and the orthography of his name.djvu/19

 to it (one to each sheet), and they were engraved for the first time in the second edition of Shakspere, by Johnson and Steevens, in 1788. They have since been engraved in nearly all the subsequent editions; in Malone's "Inquiry," 1796; in Chalmers's "Apology," 1797; in Harding's "Essence of Malone," 1801; in Ireland's "Confessions," 1805; in Drake's "Shakspeare and his Times," 1817; and lastly, in J. G. Nichols's "Autographs," 1829; in which work they are, for the second time, traced from the original document. The first of these signatures, subscribed on the first sheet, at the right hand corner of the paper, is decidedly William Shakspere, and no one has ventured to raise a doubt respecting the six last letters. The second signature is at the left hand corner of the second sheet, and is also clearly Will'm Shakspere, although from the tail of the letter h of the line above intervening between the e and r, Chalmers would fain raise an idle quibble as to the omission of a letter. The third signature has been the subject of greater controversy, and has usually been read, By me, William Shakspeare. Malone, however, was the first publicly to abjure this reading, and in his "Inquiry," p. 117, owns the error to have been pointed out to him by


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/42

20 the Loire in the midst of this tableland flowing due north to shed their waters ultimately into the Atlantic. Parallel with them, divided from the Loire only by the chain just described, distant from it from forty to fifty miles, is the Rhone, running in a precisely opposite direction, due south, to discharge into the Mediterranean.

Then, again, going west, we have the Lot, the Tarn, the Jonte, the Truyére, and the Dordogne, all in their early youth streaming from east to west, their sources, or those of some of them, twenty miles from the Allier, which is racing as hard as it can run to the north. The explanation of this last feature is easy. When the granite was upheaved it lifted a crust of Dolomite on its back like a huge shell, and in lifting split the shell in many places.

The rivers, rising in the granite of the Margeride, the Mont d'Aubrac, the Aigoual, the Monts de Lozère, and slipping off their impervious sides looking for outlets, found these fissures, took possession of them, and rushed down them on their way to the plains in the west.

The average depth of these chasms is from 1,300 to 1,500 feet, and their width at the bottom varies from 160 to 1,500 feet. Their rocky walls are carved by rain and frost into the most fantastic forms. At one time I held, with M. Martel, that these cañons were originally subterranean watercourses, and that the caverns formed by the underground waters became open valleys by the falling in of their roofs. But this idea is untenable, as I now see. The rivers descending from the granitic range must have found a passage, and they found it in the already cleft masses of the Gausses. They rise


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/107

without asking consent of any one. If he modifies it the seconder may withdraw his second. After the question has been stated it is in possession of the assembly, and he can neither withdraw nor modify it without the consent of the assembly. When the mover requests permission to modify or withdraw his motion, the chair asks if there is any objection, and if there is none he announces that the motion is withdrawn or modified in such and such a way, as the case may be. If any one objects the chair puts the question on granting the request, or a motion may be made to grant it. In case the mover of a main motion wishes to accept an amendment that has been offered, without obtaining the floor, he says, "Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment." If no objection is made the chair announces the question as amended. If any one objects, the chair states the question on the amendment, as it can be accepted only by general consent. A request for leave to do anything is treated the same as a motion to grant the leave except that the request must be made by the maker of the motion it is proposed to modify, while the motion to grant the leave is made by some one else and therefore requires no second as it is favored by the one making the request. (d) Reading Papers. If any member objects, a member has no right to read, or have the clerk read, from any paper or book, as a part of his speech, without the permission of


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/108

the assembly. The request or the motion to grant such permission yields to privileged motions. It cannot be debated, or amended, or have any other subsidiary motion applied to it. It is customary, however, to allow members to read printed extracts as parts of their speeches, as long as they do not abuse the privilege.

Where papers are laid before the assembly, every member has a right to have them read once, or if there is debate or amendment he has the right to have them read again, before he can be compelled to vote on them. Whenever a member asks for the reading of any such paper evidently for information, and not for delay, the chair should direct it to be read, if no one objects. But a member has not the right to have anything read (excepting as stated above) without permission of the assembly. If a member was absent from the hall when the paper under consideration was read, even though absent on duty, he cannot insist on its being again read, as the convenience of the assembly is of more importance than that of a single member. (e) To be Excused from a Duty. If a member is elected to office, or appointed on a committee, or has any other duty placed on him, and he is unable or unwilling to perform the duty, if present he should decline it immediately, and if absent he should, upon learning of the fact, at once notify the secretary or president orally or in writing that he


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/43

Rh the limestone area, and cut right through it, separating one Causse from another.

A second feature in the river system of Haute Loire is that a certain number of the affluents of the Loire run into it from the direction in which it is flowing, and their mouths are more or less against the stream they are about to feed. A river usually affects the form of a deciduous tree, of which the branches represent the tributaries. The branches are attached to the trunk at an obtuse angle, as seen from below. With pines it is different; with them the limbs are attached in the reverse fashion, at an acute angle as seen from below. Some of the affluents of the Loire come into it in the way in which a fir branch grows out of the main trunk. This is notably the case with the Arzon and the Borne. The reason for this is that the basin of Le Velay has a rim to the north, and the drainage from the north naturally runs down to the lowest point in the basin. But on reaching this spot the streams come on the Loire, which has cut for itself a huge gap through the northern lip of the bowl, and is able to discharge its waters through that.

How this was done demands some explanation. The Rhone is the mightiest of the rivers of France, but its sources are in the Swiss Alps, and it does not enter France till after it has passed through the Lake of Geneva. But the Loire is next in size and importance, and it flows through French soil only. The source is under the Gerbier de Jonc, in the department of Ardèche, but flows in it for a short course only. It is still a feeble stream when it enters the department of


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/109

accept the duty. In most organizations members cannot be compelled to accept office or perform any duties not required by the by-laws, and therefore they have the right to decline office. But if a member does not immediately decline, by his silence he accepts the office, and is under obligation to perform the duty until there has been a reasonable opportunity for his resignation to be accepted. The secretary, for instance, cannot relieve himself from the responsibility of his office by resigning. His responsibility as secretary does not cease until his resignation is accepted, or, at least, until there has been a reasonable time for its acceptance. It is seldom good policy to decline to accept a resignation. As a member has no right to continue to hold an office the duties of which he cannot or will not perform, so a society has no right to force an office on an unwilling member. When a member declines an office, no motion is necessary, unless the by-laws of the society make the performance of such duties obligatory upon members. If the member is present at the election, the vacancy is filled as if no one had been elected. If the member was not present at the election, when the chair announces his refusal to take the office, as it is a question of privilege relating to the organization of the society, the election to fill the vacancy may take place at once unless notice is required, or other provision for filling


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/110

is provided by the by-laws. In the case of a resignation, the chair may at once state the question on accepting it, or a motion to that effect may be made. In either case it is debatable and may have any subsidiary motion applied to it. It yields to privileged and incidental motions.

(f) Request for Any Other Privilege. When any request is to be made the member rises and addresses the chair, and as soon as he catches the eye of the chairman, states at once why he rises. He should rise as soon as a member yields the floor, and, though the floor is assigned to another, he still makes his request. He should never interrupt a member while speaking unless he is sure that the urgency of the case justifies it. As a rule all such questions are settled by general consent, or informally, but, if objection is made, a vote is taken. An explanation may be requested or given, but there is no debate. As these requests arise, they should be treated so as to interrupt the proceedings as little as is consistent with the demands of justice. Art. V. Subsidiary Motions. See 12 for a list and the general characteristics of these motions. 28. To Lay on the Table. This motion takes precedence of all other subsidiary [12] motions and of such incidental [13]


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/111

as are pending at the time it is made. It yields to privileged [14] motions and such motions as are incidental to itself. It is undebatable and cannot have any subsidiary motion applied to it. It may be applied to any main [11] motion; to any question of privilege or order of the day, after it is before the assembly for consideration; to an appeal that does not adhere to the main question, so that the action on the latter would not be affected by the reversal of the chair's decision; or to the motion to reconsider when immediately pending, in which case the question to be reconsidered goes to the table also. No motion that has another motion adhering to it can be laid on the table by itself; if laid on the table it carries with it everything that adheres to it. When a motion is taken from the table [35] everything is in the same condition, as far as practicable, as when the motion was laid on the table, except that if not taken up until the next session the effect of the previous question is exhausted. If debate has been closed by ordering the previous question, or otherwise, up to the moment of taking the last vote under the order, the questions still before the assembly may be laid on the table. Thus, if, while a resolution and an amendment and a motion to commit are pending, the previous question is ordered on the series of questions, and the vote has been taken and lost on the motion to commit, it is in order to lay on the


text:
Page:Observations on an autograph of Shakespeare, and the orthography of his name.djvu/20

 an anonymous correspondent, who "shewed most clearly, that the superfluous stroke in the letter r was only the tremor of his (Shakspere's) hand, and no a." In this opinion, after the most scrupulous examination, I entirely concur, and can repeal with confidence the words of Mr. Boaden, that "if there be truth in sight, the poet himself inserted no a in the second syllable of his name." The only remaining remark I have to make respecting the will (which it is to be regretted, has never yet been printed as it ought to be, with the original orthography and interlineations) is, that the date of execution was written at first Januarii (not Februarii, as Malone states), over which Martii has been written; and that throughout the body of the document the scrivener has written the testator's name Shackspeare, whereas on the outside it is docketed twice by the Clerk of the Prerogative Court, as the will of Mr. Shackspere.

The next document is the mortgage deed, which was discovered in 1768 by Mr. Albany Wallis, a solicitor, among the title deeds of the Rev. Mr. Featherstonehaugh, of Oxted, in Surrey, and was presented to Garrick. From the label of this, the fac simile in Malone's edition of Shakspere, 1790, was executed, bearing this appearance, ''Wm. Shakspeᵃ; and on this, in conjunction with the third signature of the will, was founded Malone's mistake in printing the name with an a'' in the second syllable.


text:
Page:Observations on an autograph of Shakespeare, and the orthography of his name.djvu/13

 in Staffordshire, about three miles from Birmingham, and thus contiguous to the county which gave Shakspere birth. How or when this gentleman first became possessed of it, is not known; but it is very certain that, previous to the year 1780, Mr. Patteson used to exhibit the volume to his friends as a curiosity, on account of the autograph. No public notice of it, however, was at any time made; and, contented with this faint notoriety, the autograph of Shakspere continued to slumber in the hands of this gentleman and his son, until by the friendly representations of Mr. Barnwell, the present owner was induced to bring it to the British Museum for inspection. Now, imperfect as this information is, yet it is ample of itself to set at rest all doubts that might at first naturally arise in the minds of those who are acquainted with the forgeries of Ireland, since, at the period when this volume was assuredly in the library at Smethwick, and known to contain Shakspere's autograph, this literary impostor was scarcely born. This fact must at once obviate any scruples in regard to the autograph now brought forward, having emanated from the same manufactory which produced the "Miscellaneous Papers." For myself, I may be permitted to remark, that the forgeries of Chatterton and Ireland have always appeared to me thoroughly


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/112

table the resolution, which carries with it the adhering amendment. This motion cannot be applied to anything except a question actually pending, therefore it is not in order to lay on the table a class of questions, as the orders of the day, or unfinished business, or reports of committees, because they are not pending questions, as only one main motion can be pending at a time.

To accomplish the desired object, which is evidently to reach a special subject or class of business, the proper course is to suspend the rules by a two-thirds vote and take up the desired question or class of business. Sometimes when it is desired to pass over the next order or class of business, that business is "passed," as it is called, by general consent. In such case, as soon as the business for which it was "passed" is disposed of, it is then taken up. By general consent, the business to come before the assembly may be considered in any order the assembly desires. If a motion to lay on the table has been made and lost, or if a question laid on the table has been taken from the table, it shows that the assembly wishes to consider the question now, and therefore a motion made the same day to lay that question on the table is out of order until there has been material progress in business or debate, or unless an unforeseen urgent matter requires immediate attention. The assembly cannot be required to vote again the same day on laying the question on the table unless there is such a change in the state of affairs as to make it a new question.


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/113

relating to adjournment or recess, made and lost, are not business justifying the renewal of the motion to lay on the table, but the renewal of the motion might be justified after a vote on an important amendment, or on the motion to commit. A vote on laying on the table cannot be reconsidered, because, if lost the motion may be renewed as soon as there has been material progress in debate or business, or even before if anything unforeseen occurs of such an urgent nature as to require immediate attention; and if adopted the question may be taken from the table as soon as the interrupting business has been disposed of and while no question is pending, and business of this class, or new or unfinished business, is in order. The Form of this motion is, "I move to lay the question on the table," or, "That the question be laid on the table," or, "That the question lie on the table." It cannot be qualified in any way; if it is qualified, thus, "To lay the question on the table until 2 ," the chair should state it properly as a motion to postpone until 2, which is a debatable question, and not the motion to lay on the table.

The Object* of this motion is to enable the


text:
Page talk:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/113

This is another page that begins a long footnote that is (in the original text) carried-over onto the next page. I have (again) consolidated all of the text of the footnote onto this page on which the reference resides. --Ronan (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


text:
Author:Henry Burdett

Works

 * Hospitals and Asylums of the World (4 volumes + Portfolio of Plans, 1891-1893), see Commons
 * 1. Asylums - History and Administration (1891), IA, IA
 * 2. Asylum Construction, Plans and Bibliography (1891), IA
 * 3. Hospitals - History and Administration (1893), IA
 * 4. Hospital Construction with Plans and Bibliography (1893), IA, IA
 * Portfolio of Plans (1893), digitized by the Royal Library of Denmark, KB.dk - Djvu on Commons
 * Portfolio of Plans (1893), digitized by the Royal Library of Denmark, KB.dk - Djvu on Commons

title: Author:Henry Burdett


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/114

 assembly, in order to attend to more urgent business, to lay aside the pending question in such a way that its consideration may be resumed at the will of the assembly as easily as if it were a new question, and in preference to new questions competing with it for consideration. It is to the interest of the assembly that this object should be attained instantly by a majority vote, and therefore this motion must either apply to, or take precedence of, every debatable motion whatever its rank. It is undebatable, and requires only a majority vote, notwithstanding the fact that if not taken from the table the question is suppressed. These are dangerous privileges which are given to no other motion whose adoption would result in final action on a main motion. There is a great temptation to make an improper use of them, and lay questions on the table for the


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/115

purpose of instantly suppressing them by a majority vote, instead of using the previous question, the legitimate motion to bring the assembly to an immediate vote. The fundamental principles of parliamentary law require a two-thirds vote for every motion that suppresses a main question for the session without free debate. The motion to lay on the table being undebatable, and requiring only a majority vote, and having the highest rank of all subsidiary motions, is in direct conflict with these principles, if used to suppress a question. If habitually used in this way, it should, like the other motions to suppress without debate, require a two-thirds vote. The minority has no remedy for the unfair use of this motion, but the evil can be slightly diminished as follows: The person who introduces a resolution is sometimes cut off from speaking by the motion to lay the question on the table being made as soon as the chair states the question, or even before. In such cases the introducer of the resolution should always claim the floor, to which he is entitled, and make his speech. Persons are commonly in such a hurry to make this motion that they neglect to address the chair and thus obtain the floor. In such case one of the minority should address the chair quickly, and if not given the floor, make the point of order that he is the first one to address the chair, and that the other member, not having the floor, was not entitled to make a motion [3]. As motions laid on the table are merely temporarily laid aside, the majority should remember that the minority may all stay to the moment of final adjournment and then be in the majority, and take up and pass the resolutions laid on the table. They may also take the question from the table at the next meeting in societies having regular meetings as frequently as


text: Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/205


text:
Page:CooperBull1(3).djvu/5

 Spring Notes on the Birds of Santa Cruz Island, Cal., April, 1898.

Island is a long, narrow mountainous island lying south of Santa Barbara and distant 21 miles from the nearest mainland. Its length is 25 miles and its width varies from 1½ to 5 miles. The coast line is exceedingly irregular and precipitous, with very few portions of the actual shore accessible from the land side. The island is very rough and jagged, principally volcanic with ranges of hills and rocks in every direction, attaining in places an elevation of over 2,000 feet. It is broken by many canons, most of which are deep and the sides almost invariably steep. In spite of the heavy backbone of volcanic rock, quite a large proportion of the island is composed of grass and brush land, there being large open areas of grass and thousands of acres of impenetrable chaparral, together with great tracts of sage brush, sometimes intermingled with cactus. In places are numerous live oaks, varying in size from scrub oaks to noble trees. The open portions contained but few birds and most of the specimens collected were obtained by crawling up the bottoms of canons containing a little water, keeping a sharp lookout for cactus, into which birds when shot would often most exasperatingly roll. In regard to this vegetable abomination, while it exists only in certain areas it really seemed as if there were not a spot on the whole island where one could put a hand on the ground, kneel or fall down, without coming in contact with a piece of the stuff which had been rolled, blown or been carried there.

The first place visited was Scorpion Harbor on April 5, 1898, a small cove on the east end of the island. This little bay is the mouth of a narrow valley some miles in length, but which becomes in reality only a rocky canon about a mile and a half back from the shore. The ranch buildings—old adobes mostly—are situated 200 yards from the little beach at a point where the rocky hills appeared to almost close together, the valley widening immediately back of them. There seemed to be a sort of "draw" at this spot and the wind howled most of the time night and day. The landing was made about four o'clock in the afternoon and the first birds seen were House Finches and Rock Wrens (Carpodacus americanus frontalis? and Salpinctes obsoletus) quantities of the former, and quite a number of the latter singing most musically from the rocky sides of the gorge.

On the way over from Santa Barbara no sea birds were seen except a few Shearwaters, Western Gulls and some Cormorants, with an occasional Scoter. About a mile east of Scorpion Harbor is a large square-looking rock near the shore which is evidently a breeding place for the Gulls and Cormorants. The country within a mile or two of this harbor is mostly grass land, with little or no brush and but few trees, cut up by many canons and gullies with exceedingly steep sides. The tops of the adjacent hills and some of the more rolling slopes were the abiding places at this time of numerous Island Horned Larks (Otocoris alpestris insularis), some thirty of which were captured. From the fact that some of these birds contained eggs almost ready to be laid it was evident that they were nesting, but hours of patient search failed to reveal a nest. The birds would flush from small hollows, from the shadows of small rocks, tufts of grass, sides of trails etc., but no sign of a nest could be found. After most carefully exploring three localities in the neighborhood where the birds were very numerous, without success, I came to the conclusion that their feeding and nesting grounds were not the same, and the latter remained undiscovered.

Many Intermediate Sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophyrs intermedia) frequented the corrals and yards, but were mostly in a sadly moulted plumage, preparing for their spring migration. Some groves of eucalyptus trees planted further up the valley were the dwelling place of quite a number of birds common to

title: Page:CooperBull1(3).djvu/5


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/206

Page 137


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/116

quarterly. The safer and fairer method is to object to the consideration of the question if it is so objectionable that it is not desired to allow even its introducer to speak on it; or, if there has been debate so it cannot be objected to, then to move the previous question, which, if adopted, immediately brings the assembly to a vote. These are legitimate motions for getting at the sense of the members at once as to whether they wish the subject discussed, and, as they require a two-thirds vote, no one has a right to object to their being adopted. The Effect of the adoption of this motion is to place on the table, that is, in charge of the secretary, the pending question and everything adhering to it; so, if an amendment is pending to a motion to refer a resolution to a committee, and the question is laid on the table, all these questions go together to the table, and when taken from the table they all come up together. An amendment proposed to anything already adopted is a main motion, and therefore when laid on the table, does not carry with it the thing proposed to be amended. A question of privilege may be laid on the table without carrying with it the question it interrupted. In legislative bodies, and all others that do not have regular sessions as often as quarterly, questions laid on the table remain there for that entire session, unless taken up before the session closes. In deliberative bodies with regular sessions as frequent as quarterly, the sessions usually are very short and questions laid on the table remain there until the close of the next regular


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/444

 On 16 Jan. 1705, at Drury Lane, Katherine Tofts took part in Clayton's ‘Arsinoe,’ an opera which enjoyed some measure of success, running twenty-four nights in the first season, and eleven the following year. ‘Camilla,’ a pasticcio by Haym from Buononcini, afforded the heroine an effective scene with a wild boar, on whom was fathered a letter to the ‘Spectator’ explaining that his feigned brutality collapsed before the ‘erect mien, charming voice, and grateful motion’ of Tofts. On 4 March 1707 she played Queen Eleanor in Addison's ‘Fair Rosamund’ set by Clayton; and on 1 April in the pasticcio ‘Thomyris.’ The musical performances were then continued under Owen MacSwinny [see ] at the Haymarket, where, on 14 Dec. 1708, was first produced Haym's arrangement of Scarlatti's ‘Pyrrhus and Demetrius,’ afterwards acted for thirty nights. With her performance in ‘Love's Triumph’ (February 1708–9) Katherine Tofts's brilliant operatic career came to an end.

Mrs. Tofts's voice was soprano, and she sang songs in various styles. Little idea of her executive power can be gained from the published music of her repertory, as much ornamentation was generally added by the vanity of the performer. Burney, however, quotes examples of her shake and iterated notes. Any defect which experts might have found in her manner of singing Italian was said by Cibber to be redeemed by her natural gifts. ‘The beauty of her fine-proportioned figure, the exquisitely sweet silver tone of her voice, with that peculiar rapid swiftness of her throat, were perfections not to be imitated by art or labour’ (Apology). Betterton remarked that scarce any nation had given us ‘for all our money’ better singers than Tofts and Leveridge. But Tofts drew a salary of 500l., which was far higher than that paid to the foreign members of the company (Coke MSS., now in the possession of Mr. Julian Marshall).

Early in 1709 Tofts retired with a fortune from the stage. It was believed that she lost her reason about the same date; but she recovered, and is stated to have married about 1710 [q. v.], the British consul at Venice from 1740 to 1760. Her health relapsed, and she appears to have been put under restraint for some years prior to her death, which probably took place in 1757 or 1758.

TOLAND, JOHN (1670–1722), deist, was born on 30 Nov. 1670 in the peninsula of Inishowen, near Londonderry. He was christened Junius Janus, but took the name John, by his schoolmaster's desire, in order to avoid the ridicule of his comrades. It was reported that he was illegitimate, and that his father was a priest. The authorities of the Irish Franciscan college at Prague testified in 1708 that he was of an honourable and ancient family. Their authority was the ‘History of the kingdom,’ and, presumably, Toland's own statement. Toland was brought up as a catholic, but became a protestant before he was sixteen. His abilities attracted the notice of some ‘eminent dissenters,’ who resolved to educate him as a minister. He was at a school at Redcastle, near Londonderry, and in 1687 went to the college at Glasgow. In June 1690 he was created M.A. by the university of Edinburgh, and in July received from the magistrates of Glasgow a certificate of his behaviour as a ‘protestant and loyal subject’ during his stay in that city as a student (documents printed by Des Maizeaux). After living in some ‘good protestant families,’ probably as tutor, he went to Leyden to finish his studies under the younger Frederick Spanheim. He became known to Le Clerc, to whose ‘Bibliothèque Universelle’ he sent an abstract of ‘Gospel Truth’ by [q. v.], founder of the library. He is described by Le Clerc as a ‘student in divinity.’ He spent two years at Leyden, and went in January 1694 to Oxford, where he read in the libraries and wrote some fragments preserved in his works. A letter in the posthumous collection (ii. 294, &c.) shows that he was already suspected of freethinking opinions, though he professed moderate orthodoxy. Before leaving Oxford in 1695 he had finished his ‘Christianity not Mysterious.’ Its publication in 1696 produced an outburst of controversy, the first act of the warfare between deists and the orthodox which occupied the next generation. Toland did not openly profess disbelief in the orthodox doctrines, though the tendency of his arguments was obvious. He was attacked by many divines, and the book was presented by the grand jury of Middlesex. Toland went to Ireland early in 1697, where he was welcomed by [q. v.]


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/445

 as a pupil of Le Clerc and a friend of Locke. Stillingfleet had just published his ‘Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity,’ in which Locke and Toland were coupled as Socinians and called ‘gentlemen of this new way of reasoning.’ Locke took great pains in his reply to disavow the supposed identity of opinions. Toland, though he does not quote the words, was in general sympathy with the principles, of Locke's writings and had some personal acquaintance with the author. Toland reached Ireland to find himself denounced from the pulpit. Molyneux soon reports that he raised a clamour against himself by imprudent discourses in coffee-houses and other public places. Locke tells Molyneux that Toland, though showing much promise, was likely to go wrong through ‘his exceeding great value of himself.’ Both Locke and Molyneux, though condemning his persecutors, found that his indiscretion made it difficult to protect him. Peter Browne [q. v.], afterwards bishop of Cork, published a ‘Letter’ declaring that Toland was setting up for head of a new sect, and meant to rival Mahomet. The grand jury presented his book, and the House of Commons, after some sharp discussions, voted (9 Sept. 1697) that it should be burnt by the common hangman and the author arrested and prosecuted. He retreated to England, and South, in a dedication to his third volume of sermons (1698), congratulated the parliament upon having made the kingdom too hot to hold him.

Molyneux tells Locke that it had become dangerous to speak to Toland, who was in actual want and in debt for his wigs and his lodging. The persecution, however, seems also to have acted as an advertisement, and Toland obtained employment from booksellers. In 1698 he edited Milton's prose works and prefixed a life, also separately published. In this he attributed the ‘Icon Basilike’ to Gauden, and remarked that the belief in Charles I's authorship made intelligible the admission in early times of ‘so many supposititious pieces under the name of Christ and his apostles.’ He was attacked by Offspring Blackall [q. v.], who took this phrase to refer to the canonical gospels. Toland replied effectively in ‘Amyntor,’ giving a long catalogue of admittedly apocryphal books still extant as mentioned by early writers. He also defended his statement as to the ‘Icon Basilike’ against Thomas Wagstaff, who supported the royalist opinion.

Toland meanwhile looked for patronage to the party opposed to the church claims, whether freethinking whig nobles or leading dissenters and city magnates. In 1699 he was employed by John Holles, duke of Newcastle [q. v.], to edit the ‘Memoirs’ of Denzil Holles [q. v.], and in 1700 he edited Harrington's ‘Oceana’ and other works, with a life of the author. To this he was encouraged by Harley (Collection of Pieces, ii. 227), with whom he was long connected. The dedication to the city of London contains an elaborate compliment to the sturdy whig Sir Robert Clayton [q. v.], famous for his defence of the city charter. Toland incurred some ridicule by advertising superfluously in the ‘Post Man’ that Clayton did not intend to bring him in for Bletchingley in William's last parliament (see also letter to Clayton in Collected Pieces, ii. 318, &c.). Toland defended the Act of Succession (June 1701) in a pamphlet called ‘Anglia Libera,’ dedicated to the Duke of Newcastle. In recognition of his services Charles Gerard, lord Macclesfield [q. v.], took him on the mission to present the act to the Dowager-electress Sophia; Macclesfield's death soon afterwards injured his chance of preferment, although he had had some difficulties with his patron (Original Letters of Locke, &c., 1830, p. 146). Soon after his return Toland published his ‘Vindicius Liberius,’ commenting upon some proceedings in convocation in the previous spring. The lower house had desired a prosecution of the ‘Christianity not Mysterious’ and ‘Amyntor.’ Toland had written letters to the prolocutor which the house declined to hear. He now declared that he had suppressed ‘Christianity not Mysterious’ after a second edition, spoke apologetically of his youthful ‘indiscretion,’ and said that he ‘willingly and heartily conformed to the doctrine and worship of the church of England’ (Vindicius Liberius, pp. 81, 106).

Toland's career during the following years is obscure. A letter of 26 June 1705 (printed in the Collection of Pieces, ii. 337–351) professes to explain why he had never received an employment. According to this account, his crime was in too great independence of parties. He said that he had never been connected with the great whigs Somers and Halifax. He had no communication with Harley after William's death, though he had been called ‘Mr. Harley's creature.’ His support had been derived from Lord Shaftesbury (cf. the Characteristics) and certain ‘other worthy persons at home,’ with ‘some help from Germany.’ Shaftesbury, who sympathised with his freethinking, made him for some time an allowance of 20l. a year. In 1701 he had visited and been kindly received at the courts of Hanover


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/117

session, if not taken up earlier; just as in the same assemblies a question can be postponed to the next session, and the effect of the motion to reconsider, if not called up, does not terminate until the close of the next session. The reasons for any one of these rules apply with nearly equal force to the others. While a question is on the table no motion on the same subject is in order that would in any way affect the question that is on the table; it is necessary first to take the question from the table and move the new one as a substitute, or to make such other motion as is adapted to the case. 29. The Previous Question* takes


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/446

 and Berlin, of which he published an ‘Account’ in 1705. Sophie Charlotte, queen of Prussia, admitted him to her philosophical conversations (see, Friedrich, bk. i. ch. iv.; and , Mémoires de … Sophie Charlotte, 1801, pp. 198–211). To her he addressed the letters to ‘Serena.’ They contain some interesting remarks, and especially an argument to prove that motion is ‘essential to matter,’ which is described as remarkable in Lange's ‘Geschichte des Materialismus’ (2nd edit. i. 272–6, ii. 96). The letter of 1705 shows that Toland was anxious to be employed by the government, of which his old patron Harley was now a member. He thinks that Godolphin might employ him as a correspondent at Hanover, where he would not be either ‘minister or spy,’ but welcome everywhere as ‘a lover of learning.’ He also would not object to his appointment being ‘paid quarterly.’ Harley made some use of him as of other authors. He was employed to write a ‘Memorial of the State of England’ in answer to the ‘Memorial of the Church of England’ by James Drake [q. v.], which had made a great noise. He defended Harley and Marlborough in further pamphlets, and in 1707 edited a manuscript ‘Oration’ against the French, in Harley's possession. He made another foreign tour, of which an account is given by Des Maizeaux. According to Des Maizeaux, a translation of the elector palatine's ‘Declaration … in favour of his Protestant Subjects’ (1707) brought him a mission from the elector's minister in England. Toland again went to Berlin, which he was forced to leave by ‘an incident too ludicrous to be mentioned.’ Thence he visited Hanover and Düsseldorf, where the elector palatine gave him a gold chain and a hundred ducats; and went to Vienna, where he was employed to procure a countship of the empire for a French banker in Holland. Toland failed in this, which possibly (see below) covered another, mission, and, after visiting Prague at the end of 1707, got back in a penniless state to Holland. Here he stayed for some time, and published his ‘Adeisidæmon,’ dedicated to Anthony Collins [q. v.] the deist, and one or two other pamphlets. In Holland he made some acquaintance with Prince Eugène, who ‘gave him several marks of his generosity.’ Toland returned to England in 1710. He wrote some pamphlets against Sacheverell and Jacobitism. Two ‘Memorials’ of 1711 (printed in the Collection of Pieces, ii. 215–38), addressed to Harley (now Earl of Oxford), imply that he believed himself to have strong claims upon the minister. He had been employed in some way as an agent, and refers to his ‘impenetrable negotiation at Vienna,’ which was rewarded ‘by the prince that employed me.’ He wished to act as Oxford's ‘private monitor,’ and would like a moderate ‘annual allowance,’ while declining a public post. He is in favour of a coalition of moderate whigs and tories, and says that he assumes Harley's fidelity to principles of toleration and to the Hanoverian succession. He speaks bitterly of the favour shown to S[wift] and P[rior], who are allowed a familiarity now denied to him. These memorials, if ever sent, probably show that Toland's vanity, worked upon by Oxford's cajoleries, had given him an excessive notion of his own importance, but are also favourable to his political honesty. He wrote various pamphlets against Jacobites and high-churchmen, and early in 1714 published the ‘Art of Restoring,’ in which Oxford was accused of intending to follow in the steps of Monck. The pamphlet made a sensation, especially when it was known to be the work of a former dependent of the minister (, Queen Anne, p. 661), and went through ten editions.

After the accession of George I Toland continued to write political pamphlets in the same sense. They attracted little attention, however, though the ‘State Anatomy’ (1716) was answered by De Foe and Richard Fiddes [q. v.] He returned to other speculations in ‘Nazarenus’ (1718) and ‘Tetradymus’ (1720), discussing various points of ecclesiastical history in a freethinking spirit. His most curious performance was the ‘Pantheisticon’ (1720). It sets forth the principles of a supposed philosophical society of pantheists who meet and go through a kind of liturgy commemorating ancient philosophers. He was accused by Francis Hare [q. v.], in his ‘Scripture Vindicated,’ of inserting in some copies a prayer to Bacchus, which, however, according to Des Maizeaux, was written in ridicule by an adversary. Toland had the book privately printed and ‘distributed copies with a view of receiving some presents for them.’ This, no doubt, was the real motive of the performance. Toland, in fact, was sinking into distress. He seems to have been partly supported by Robert, lord Molesworth [q. v.] Some letters printed in the ‘Collection of Pieces’ show that Molesworth's favour enabled him to make some speculations in the South Sea business in 1720. Molesworth also entrusted him with the publication of the letters to himself from Shaftesbury (1721). Toland from about 1718 lived at Putney. His health failed at the end of 1721, and, after suffering patiently, he died


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/447

 on 11 March 1721–2, saying that he was ‘going to sleep.’ He composed a Latin epitaph for himself a few days before, speaking of his independence and his knowledge of ten languages, and ending: ‘Ipse vero æternum est resurrecturus, at idem futurus Tolandus nunquam.’

Toland was evidently a man of remarkable versatility and acuteness, and his first book struck the keynote of the long discussions as to the relation between the religion of nature and the accepted doctrines. He showed also an acute perception of the importance of historical inquiries into the origin of creeds, though his precarious circumstances prevented him from carrying out continuous studies. His contemporaries held that vanity led him to a rash exposition of crude guesses. Allowance must be made for the unfortunate circumstances which compelled him to make a living in the ambiguous position of a half-recognised political agent and a hack-author dependent upon the patronage of men in power. Some of his writings were respectfully criticised by Leibnitz, and he was in intercourse with some of the ablest men of his time. He is generally noticed along with Collins and Tindal as the object of the contempt of respectable divines, but deserves real credit as a pioneer of freethought. He had read widely and knew many languages, including Irish, which he had learnt in his infancy (see his History of the Druids), and some of the Teutonic languages.

Toland's works are: 1. ‘Christianity not Mysterious,’ 1696. 2. ‘A Discourse upon Coins by Signor Davanzani Bottiche … and translated out of Italian by John Toland,’ 1696. 3. ‘An Apology for Mr. Toland,’ 1697. 4. ‘The Militia Reformed,’ 1698. 5. ‘Life of John Milton,’ 1698 (also prefixed to Milton's ‘Prose Works,’ in 3 vols. fol.). 6. ‘Amyntor’ (contains a defence of the last, a catalogue of apocryphal Christian writings, and a history of the ‘Icon Basilike’), 1699. 7. ‘Memoirs of Denzil, Lord Holles’ (edited with a preface), 1699. 8. ‘The “Oceana” of James Harrington’ (edited with a life), 1700. 9. ‘Clito: a Poem on the Force of Eloquence,’ 1700. 10. ‘The Art of Governing by Parties,’ 1701. 11. ‘Propositions for uniting the two East India Companies,’ 1701. 12. ‘Anglia Libera’ (defence of the Act of Succession), 1701. 13. ‘Vindicius Liberius’ (on the proceedings against him in convocation), 1702. 14. ‘Paradoxes of State’ (on the king's speech), 1702. 15. ‘Reasons for addressing his Majesty to invite into England the Electress Dowager … and for attainting the pretended Prince of Wales,’ 1703. 16. ‘Letters to Serena,’ 1704 (French translation by Holbach in 1768 as ‘Lettres Philosophiques’). 17. ‘An Account of the Courts of Prussia and Hanover,’ 1705 (2nd edition in 1706 with ordinances of the Berlin Academy). 18. ‘The Memorial of the State of England,’ 1705 (answer to ‘Memorial of the Church of England’ by James Drake [q. v.]). 19. ‘Oratio Philippica ad excitandos contra Galliam Britannos’ (edited and published in English; new edition in 1709). 20. ‘Adeisidæmon’ (on the prodigies in Livy) and ‘Origines Judaicæ’ (defending Strabo's account of the Jews), 1709. 21. ‘Lettre d'un Anglois à un Hollandois au sujet du Docteur Sacheverell,’ 1710. 22. ‘The Description of Epsom,’ 1711. 23. ‘A Letter against Popery,’ 1712. 24. ‘Her Majesty's Reasons for creating the Electoral Prince of Hanover a Peer of the Realm,’ 1712. 25. ‘An Appeal to honest People against wicked Priests’ (against Sacheverell), 1712. 26. ‘Cicero illustratus, Dissertatio Philologico-Critica,’ 1712 (proposals for editing Cicero's works). 27. ‘Dunkirk and Dover,’ 1713. 28. ‘The Art of Restoring’ (a parallel between Monck and Lord Oxford), 1713 (ten editions in a quarter of a year). 29. ‘Reasons for Naturalising the Jews,’ 1713. 30. ‘The Funeral Elegy … of the Princess Sophia,’ 1714. 31. ‘The Grand Mystery laid open’ (defence of the Hanoverian succession), 1714. 32. ‘The State Anatomy of Great Britain,’ 1717; eight editions (answered by Fiddes and De Foe, to whom Toland replied in a second part). 33. ‘Nazarenus’ (containing the history of the Gospel of Barnabas, and ‘The Original Plan of Christianity’), 1718. 34. ‘The Destiny of Rome’ (the downfall of the pope proved from the prophecy of St. Malachi), 1718. 35. ‘Pantheisticon,’ 1720 (in English in 1751). 36. ‘Tetradymus, containing Hodegus’ (on the pillar of cloud and fire), ‘Clidophorus’ (on esoteric philosophy), ‘Hypatia’ (her history), ‘Mangoneutes’ (defence of ‘Nazarenus’), 1720. ‘A Collection of several Pieces of Mr. John Toland,’ 1726, includes a life (by Des Maizeaux), the ‘History of the Druids,’ a few fragments and some letters (reprinted in 1747 with Des Maizeaux's name, and in 1814). [A meagre life of Toland by ‘one of his most intimate friends,’ 1722, is little more than a catalogue of his works. The rather fuller life by Des Maizeaux is prefixed to the collection of 1726 (above). Fragmentary collections of papers by Toland, including some of the materials used by Des Maizeaux, are in the British Museum


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/118

of all subsidiary [12] motions except to lay on the table, and yields to privileged [14] and incidental [13] motions, and to the motion to lay on the table. It is undebatable, and cannot be amended or have any other subsidiary motion applied to it. The effect of an amendment may be obtained by calling for, or moving, the previous question on a different set of the pending questions (which must be consecutive and include the immediately pending question), in which case the vote is taken first on the motion which orders the previous question on the largest number of questions. It may be applied to any debatable or amendable motion or motions, and if unqualified it applies only to the immediately pending motion. It may be qualified so as to apply to a series of pending questions, or to a consecutive part of a series beginning with the immediately pending question. It requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption. After the previous question has been ordered, up to the time of taking the last vote under it, the questions that have not been voted on may be laid on the table, but can have no other subsidiary motions applied to them. An appeal made after the previous question has been demanded or ordered and before its exhaustion, is undebatable. The previous question, before any vote has been taken under it, may be reconsidered, but not after its partial execution. As no one would vote to reconsider the vote


text:
Author:Sigismund Wilhelm Koelle

Works

 * Kanuri Proverbs and Fables, London Church Missionary House, 1854
 * African Native Literature
 * "The Rat and the Toad" An argosy of fables, Book 4, Kraal and wigwam fables. Part 1, African fables. p. 463.

title: Author:Sigismund Wilhelm Koelle


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/448

 Addit. MSS. 4295 and 4465. In 1722 Mosheim added to the second edition of his ‘Vindiciæ adversus celeberrimi viri J. Tolandi Nazarenum’ a ‘Commentatio de vita, factis et scriptis J. T.’ This, like the others, depends chiefly upon references in Toland's own writings. The life in the Biogr. Britannica adds little. There is an article upon Toland in Disraeli's Calamities of Authors; see also Lechler's Geschichte des englischen Deismus, pp. 180–209; and the Rev. John Hunt's Religious Thought in England, ii. 226–72.]

 TOLER, JOHN, first (1745–1831), chief justice of the court of common pleas in Ireland, youngest son of Daniel Toler by his wife Letitia, daughter of Thomas Otway of Castle Otway, was born at Beechwood, co. Tipperary, on 3 Dec. 1745. The family, originally from Norfolk, traced its descent in Ireland to an officer in the Cromwellian army, who acquired some property in county Tipperary. Having been educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where Toler graduated B.A. in 1761 and M.A. in 1766, he entered the legal profession, and was called to the Irish bar in Michaelmas term 1770. In 1776 he was elected M.P. for Tralee, and on entering parliament he let it soon be seen that his services were at the disposal of government. His silent vote was rewarded with a silk gown in 1781. At the general election in 1783 he was returned as one of the representatives of the borough of Philipstown, his elder brother, Daniel (d. 1796), being at the same time chosen one of the county members for Tipperary. When Henry Flood [q. v.] in November 1783 moved for leave to bring in a bill to reform parliament, Toler urged its rejection on the ground that ‘it was not the legitimate offspring either of the parliament or the people. It was the spurious abortion of the lying-in-hospital sent into the world before its time.’ In 1789 (patent 12 Aug.) he succeeded Arthur Wolfe (afterwards Viscount Kilwarden) [q. v.] as solicitor-general, and demonstrated the propriety of his advancement by opposing (20 Feb. 1790) a motion of Grattan reprobating the sale of places and peerages during the administration of the Marquis of Buckingham. He was returned for Gorey borough at the general election in May 1790, and established a claim to further promotion by the consistent support he gave the government of the Earl of Westmorland in 1790–3.

Though possessing little claim to respect as a politician, his deficiencies were amply compensated by his readiness to give or exact personal satisfaction; while his broad humour and absolute indifference to propriety often saved the situation by converting a serious matter into a wholly ludicrous one. During the short session of 1792 he made a savage attack on James Napper Tandy [q. v.], alluding to the personal part he had played in the affairs of the catholics, and regretting that they had been unable ‘to set a better face on the matter.’ When called upon by Tandy to explain his words he declined to do so on the ground of his immunity as a member of parliament. No one could question his readiness to give Tandy satisfaction, but, owing to some misunderstanding, a meeting never took place, and, the house having intervened to place Tandy in custody, he scored an easy victory.

Naturally when Earl Fitzwilliam in 1794–5 undertook the government of Ireland on professedly liberal principles, Toler's removal was a matter of first importance; but in consenting to it Pitt expressly stipulated that he was not to be removed unless a place was provided for him such as he might have accepted under Lord Westmorland (, vii. 87; cf. also Beresford Corresp. ii. 67). Exasperated by the attack that had been made upon him, Toler, after the recall of Fitzwilliam, avenged himself on the opposition by unreservedly supporting the government of Lord Camden. On 4 May 1795 he moved the rejection of the catholic relief bill. ‘He spoke,’ wrote Marcus Beresford to his father, ‘for above two hours, and left the question without an attempt to argue it, but concluded with a vehement assertion that the bill could not be carried without the repeal of the bill of rights, the breach of the coronation oath and of the compact between the two countries. The other side was even with him; for they as positively asserted the contrary’ (ib. ii. 108; Parl. Reg. xiv. 208–17). He was rewarded with a title for his wife, who was created a peeress of Ireland in her own right on 7 Nov. 1797 by the title of Baroness Norwood of Knockalton, co. Tipperary, and on 10 July 1798 he himself was appointed attorney-general in succession to Wolfe, who had been promoted to the chief-justiceship of the king's bench, being sworn of the privy council on 2 Aug. As attorney-general he conducted the prosecution of those who were concerned in the rebellion of '98; but his indifference to human suffering, as in the case of John and Henry Sheares [q. v.], disgusted even those who thought the occasion called for firmness on the part of government. In 1799 he brought in a bill investing the lord-lieutenant with discretionary power to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act and to establish


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/207

UOMS is a quaint little town on the Ardèche, where that river issues from between parallel walls of lias, not of great elevation, laid in regular horizontal beds. The road follows the river upwards for a short way only, and then turns up the Ligne towards Argentière. Ruoms was a walled town, and a considerable portion of the fortifications remains enclosing the church, old houses, and narrow and dirty lanes. The church is interesting, very early and rude Romanesque, lofty, with three bays and side aisles. There are quasi-transepts, not extending beyond the aisles. The east end is square. The piers and arches are unmoulded. A curious feature is a window on the south, apparently to serve for a clerestory light, with pilasters and sculptured capitals, but it has never been pierced through, so that it acts merely as a relieving arcade in the wall. Another unusual feature is that the wall of the south aisle has in it narrow square-headed


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/119

ordering the previous question who was not opposed to the previous question, it follows that if the motion to reconsider prevails, it will be impossible to secure a two-thirds vote for the previous question, and, therefore, if it is voted to reconsider the previous question it is considered as rejecting that question and placing the business as it was before the previous question was moved. If a vote taken under the previous question is reconsidered before the previous question is exhausted, there can be no debate or amendment of the proposition; but if the reconsideration is after the previous question is exhausted, then the motion to reconsider, as well as the question to be reconsidered, is divested of the previous question and is debatable. If lost, the previous question may be renewed after sufficient progress in debate to make it a new question. The Form of this motion is, "I move [or demand, or call for] the previous question on [here specify the motions on which it is desired to be ordered]." As it cannot be debated or amended, it must be voted on immediately. The form of putting the question* is, "The previous question is moved [or demanded, or called for] on [specify the motions on which the previous question is demanded].


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/449

 law. He supported the union, and was advanced to be chief justice of the court of common pleas in succession to Hugh Carleton, viscount Carleton [q. v.], on 20 Dec. 1800. He was elevated to the peerage as Baron Norbury of Ballyorenode, co. Tipperary, on the 29th of the same month. His appointment to the chief-justiceship was deprecated by Lord Clare, who thought him, with reason, unfitted for the bench. ‘Make him,’ Clare is reported to have said, ‘a bishop, or even an archbishop, but not a chief justice.’

Norbury held the appointment for nearly twenty-seven years; although his scanty knowledge of law, his gross partiality, his callousness, and his buffoonery, completely disqualified him for the position. His court was in a constant uproar owing to his noisy merriment. He joked even when the life of a human being was hanging in the balance. He presided at the trial of Robert Emmet [q. v.] To Daniel O'Connell (1775–1847) [q. v.], who made more than one effort to procure his removal before he ultimately succeeded, he was an especial object of abhorrence; but Norbury was sometimes able to turn the tables on his adversary. It happened that O'Connell, shortly after his return to Ireland from London, where he had been arrested on his way to the continent to fight a duel with Peel, was arguing a case before Norbury to which the latter was apparently paying no attention. ‘I am afraid your lordship,’ said O'Connell severely, ‘does not apprehend me.’ ‘I beg your pardon, Mr. O'Connell,’ replied the chief justice, with a sneering chuckle, ‘no one is more easily apprehended than Mr. O'Connell when he wishes to be.’ The bons mots ascribed to him are innumerable, and doubtless many spurious ones were fathered upon him.

As a staunch supporter of protestant ascendency, and one whose creed was summed up in the words ‘stare super vias antiquas,’ Norbury's influence in the government of Ireland during the early years of the century was very great. The discovery in 1822 of a letter addressed to him some years previously by William Saurin [q. v.], then attorney-general, urging him to use his influence with the gentry composing the grand juries on circuit against the catholics, did not improve his reputation for impartiality, and at the instigation of O'Connell the matter was brought before parliament by Brougham. The attack greatly exasperated him. ‘I'll resign to demand satisfaction,’ he is reported to have said; ‘that Scottish Broom wants to be made acquainted with an Irish stick.’ His presence on the bench was, however, ultimately felt by all parties to be a scandal and an obstacle to the establishment of a better understanding with the catholics. In 1825 O'Connell drew up a petition to parliament calling for his removal on the ground that he had fallen asleep during a trial for murder and was unable to give any account of the evidence when called on for his notes by the lord-lieutenant. The petition was presented, but no motion was based upon it, as Peel gave an assurance that the matter would be inquired into. But it was not till the accession of Canning as prime minister in 1827, when Norbury was in his eighty-second year, that he was induced to resign, or, as O'Connell put it, ‘bought off the bench by a most shameful traffic,’ by his advancement in the peerage as Viscount Glandine and Earl of Norbury, with special remainder to his second son, together with a retiring pension of 3,046l. He died at Dublin on 27 July 1831, aged 85. He had his joke to the last; for hearing that his neighbour, Lord Erne, was expiring, and feeling his own end near, he called his valet: ‘James,’ said he, ‘run round to Lord Erne and tell him, with my compliments, that it will be a dead-heat between us.’

Toler married, on 2 June 1778, Grace, daughter of Hector Graham, esq., and by her, who was created Baroness Norwood in 1797 and died on 21 July 1822, he had two sons and two daughters. His elder son, Daniel, lord Norwood, who succeeded his mother in that title in 1822, was of unsound mind. The second son, Hector John, second earl of Norbury, after his eviction of a tenant, was shot near Durrow Castle on 1 Jan. 1839, and died three days later (Times, 5 and 7 Jan. 1839); he was succeeded by his son, Hector John, third earl, the father of the fourth and present earl.

Somewhat short in stature and rather pursy in advancing years, with a jovial countenance and merry twinkling little grey eyes, Toler's appearance ‘set dignity at defiance and put gravity to flight.’ In speaking he had an extraordinary habit of inflating his cheeks at the end of every sentence, and was consequently nicknamed Puffendorf. He sat a horse well, and, in addition to his other accomplishments, could sing a good song, and often did so in miscellaneous company long after he became chief justice. He had an excellent memory, knew much of Shakespeare and Milton by heart, and declaimed well. He had the reputation of being an excellent landlord and a gentle and forbearing master. [Gent. Mag. 1831, ii. 368, 478; Annual Register, 1831, p. 251; Burke's Peerage; Smyth's


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/450

 Law Officers, pp. 48–50, 122, 170, 180, 199, 201; Phillips's Curran and his Contemporaries; Grattan's Speeches, ii. 363, iii. 247; Official Return of M.P.'s (Irel.); Castlereagh's Corresp. ii. 73, 428; Fitzpatrick's Secret Service under Pitt, pp. 125, 158, 312; Shiel's Sketches of the Irish Bar, with notes by Skelton Mackenzie (N.Y. 1856), pp. 5–40; Russell's Eccentric Personages, ii. 117–35; O'Connell's Corresp. ed. Fitzpatrick, i. 80, 146–7, 195; O'Keeffe's Life and Times of O'Connell, i. 464–73; Mr. Gregory's Letter-Box, pp. 152, 205–6, 295; Hist. MSS. Comm. 4th Rep. (Colchester MSS.) p. 345, 14th Rep. App. pt. i. (Rutland MSS.), iii. 316; Addit. MSS. 29960 ff. 2, 4, to J. Welcot, 1805, 1806, 34420 f. 284 to W. Eden, 1785; Wills's Irish Nation, iii. 679–86; Webb's Compendium of Irish Biography.]

TOLFREY, WILLIAM (1778?–1817), orientalist, born in or about 1778, was educated in England. Proceeding in 1794 to Calcutta, where his father then lived, he obtained at first some subordinate post in a public office, but soon afterwards relinquished this for an ensigncy in the 76th (foot) regiment. His military career was creditable. Promoted to the 74th regiment, he served in the Mysore war under General George Harris (afterwards first Lord Harris) [q. v.], and in the Mahratta campaigns of 1803–4. He was distinguished also in the battle of Assaye. In 1805 he sold his commission, and, visiting an uncle, Samuel Tolfrey, in Ceylon, obtained a post in the public service of the island in 1806. In 1813 he was assistant commissioner of revenue and commerce, and shortly afterwards his proficiency in Sinhalese obtained him the post of chief translator to the resident at Kandy. On the arrival of Sir Robert Brownrigg as governor in 1812, a bible society was started, and Tolfrey undertook the revision of the old Sinhalese translation of the Bible made by the Dutch. Struck by the unduly colloquial character of this version, he adopted the strange course of previously translating each verse into the classical Pali. It was probably this that led him to attempt the translation of the whole New Testament into Pali, a work which he had nearly completed at the time of his death. It was subsequently printed, but as a literary production it was of no great value. Tolfrey was, however, probably the first Englishman to study Pali, the most important of the languages of Buddhism, and he merits recognition as a pioneer. Benjamin Clough used his materials for the compilation of his Pali grammar, produced in 1824, which was the only work of the kind for some thirty years. Tolfrey died in Ceylon on 4 Jan. 1817.

 TOLLEMACHE, or, as he himself spelt his name, Thomas (1651?–1694), lieut.-general, born about 1651, was second son of Sir Lionel Tollemache, third bart. (d. 1668), of Helmingham, Suffolk, by Elizabeth, daughter of William Murray, first earl of Dysart [q. v.] There was a rumour, undeserving of serious consideration, to the effect that his mother, who became Countess of Dysart in her own right, and afterwards by her second marriage Duchess of Lauderdale [see, d. 1697)], was Cromwell's mistress when he was in Scotland. Lord Dartmouth says that Tollemache was commonly thought to be Cromwell's son, and ‘he had a very particular sort of vanity in desiring it should be so understood’ (, iv. 228, footnote). But Sir Lionel Tollemache never doubted that he was Thomas's father, and left him in his will a larger sum for his maintenance and education than he left to any other child excepting his eldest son Lionel, who was born on 9 Feb. 1649 (N.S.), succeeded as fourth baronet, became Earl of Dysart on his mother's death in 1697, and died on 3 Feb. 1726–7.

The inscription on Tollemache's monument says that ‘his natural abilities and first education were improved by his travels into foreign nations, where he spent several years in the younger part of his life in the observation of their genius, customs, politicks, and interests; and in the service of his country abroad in the field.’ On 16 Jan. 1678 he obtained a commission as captain of one of eight newly raised companies in the Coldstream regiment of guards. On 17 Feb. he was appointed lieutenant-colonel in Lord Alington's regiment of foot, which was sent to Flanders soon afterwards. This regiment was disbanded in April 1679, and on 30 May Tollemache was re-commissioned as captain in the Coldstream guards.

In June 1680 he was sent with his company to Tangier, where it formed part of a composite battalion of guards. Tangier had been hard pressed by the Moors, but their efforts had slackened as the garrison increased. In the autumn he helped to drive them back from some of the positions they had taken, but he was in England again before the end of November. On 13 June 1682 he had a duel with Captain Parker (probably John Parker (fl. 1705) [q. v.]), who challenged him for some affront (, i. 193). It was perhaps in connection with this quarrel that on 21 June


text:
Author:Francis Crawford Burkitt

Works

 * Early Christianity outside the Roman Empire (1899)
 * Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (1914)
 * "Preface" in The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1911)

Contributions to EB1911

 * (New Testament, Higher Criticism)
 * (in part)

title: Author:Francis Crawford Burkitt


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/451

 's company of the Coldstreams was given to another officer.

On 11 June 1685 he was appointed by James II lieutenant-colonel of the regiment of fusiliers which was then being formed (now the royal fusiliers). But he surrendered James II's commission ‘as soon as he saw that the army was to be used to set up an arbitrary power’ (Merc. Brit. 23 June 1694). Another was appointed in his place on 1 May 1686. More than six months earlier, on 9 Oct. 1685, he had become colonel of one of the Anglo-Dutch regiments (now the Northumberland fusiliers), which had been brought over to England in July on account of Monmouth's rebellion, and went back to Holland in the autumn.

He was one of the officers who declined to leave the Dutch service at James's summons in March 1688. He was in England at the time, for Luttrell notes in his ‘Diary’ that he ‘is gone into Holland and a privy seal is sent after him’ (i. 434). He and his regiment formed part of the force with which the Prince of Orange landed at Torbay in November. William made him governor of Portsmouth in December, in place of the Duke of Berwick, and colonel of the Coldstream guards on 1 May 1689, in place of Lord Craven. He served under Marlborough in the Netherlands in 1689 as second in command of the English brigade in Waldeck's army, and the Coldstreams won great distinction under him at Walcourt (9 Aug.).

On 20 Dec. 1690 he was promoted major-general. In June 1691 he went to Ireland and served under Godert de Ginkel [q. v.] At Athlone on 30 June he had much to do with the bold determination to storm the town from the riverside; he joined the advance party as a volunteer, and was one of the first men to ford the Shannon. At the battle of Aghrim he commanded the infantry of the right wing in second line, and, when the first attack failed, he led forward the troops by whom the battle was won. At Galway he ‘would needs go as a volunteer, as he usually did when it was not his turn to command,’ in the assault of the outworks, the capture of which was followed by the surrender of the town. In the second siege of Limerick he led the infantry, which crossed the Shannon above the town on 15 Sept., repulsed the Irish attacks, and enabled Ginkel to complete his investment. He was made governor of Limerick after it was taken.

He had been elected to the English House of Commons M.P. for Malmesbury on 30 Jan. 1689, and was returned for Chippenham on 14 Dec. 1691. There is no mention of his speeches in the ‘Parliamentary History,’ but he is said to have ‘asserted with the utmost vigour the rights of his countrymen’ (Merc. Brit. ut supra). This had reference no doubt to the preference shown to foreign officers by William. It was thought that he would follow the example of Charles Trelawny [q. v.], who resigned his regiment at the beginning of 1692, but he did not. On 12 Jan. Marlborough was dismissed, and on the 23rd Tollemache was promoted lieutenant-general in his place.

He served during that year in the Netherlands under William, and after the battle of Steinkirk (3 Aug.) he ‘brought off the British foot by his great conduct’ (, ii. 528). In September he was detached with a force of sixteen thousand men to cover Bruges and Ostend, and to take part in the contemplated siege of Dunkirk. He was made governor of Dixmude. When parliament met in November indignant protests were made against Count Solms's behaviour at Steinkirk [see ], and some members proposed an address to the king asking that Tollemache should be put in his place. But Tollemache's best friends begged the house not to do him such an injury, and the proposal was dropped.

In March 1693 he was transferred from the governorship of Portsmouth to that of the Isle of Wight. He commanded the British infantry in the campaign in the Netherlands of that year, and was in charge of the centre at the battle of Neerwinden (or Landen) on 19 July. At the head of the Coldstreams and fusiliers he for some time repelled the enemies' attempts to force their way over the intrenchments near the village of Neerwinden after the village itself had been taken, and he had a horse killed under him. Charged by William to see to the retreat of the infantry, he brought them off by Dormael to Leuwe, ‘with as much prudence as he had before fought with bravery’ (, Campaign of 1693).

The mishap to the Smyrna merchant fleet in 1693 had caused much discontent, and it was determined that in 1694 better use should be made of the allies' naval superiority. An expedition against Brest was planned at Tollemache's suggestion, according to Burnet, in March, but the ordnance-department and the treasury caused delay in equipping it, and the French fleet got away to the Mediterranean. Russell was ordered to follow it with the best part of the fleet, but it was decided that the Brest expedition should still be carried out. Ten battalions, or about seven thousand men, were allotted to it, and the command of these troops was given to Tollemache (cf., ii. 457–61).


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/215

Page 144


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/452

 Orders for embarkation were issued to the fleets destined both for Brest and the Mediterranean on 11 May, but owing to adverse winds the combined fleets did not leave Spithead till 30 May. On 5 June they parted company, Russell going on to the Mediterranean, while Lord Berkeley, with forty-one ships of the line and frigates, English and Dutch, made for Brest. At 7 P.M. on the 7th his fleet anchored off the entrance to the port.

It had been settled at councils of war on 31 May and 6 June that the troops should be landed to the south of the entrance, in Camaret Bay, and the ships should remain at anchor till they learnt from Tollemache ‘the condition of the fort on the starboard side going in, and what forces he might find there.’ The object seems to have been to get possession of the peninsula of Quélern, which forms the south shore of the Goulet. The fleet could then pass with less risk through the Goulet into Brest roads, ‘to assist in carrying on the design against the town and the ships there’ (Russell's Instructions to Berkeley in ).

On the evening of the 7th a reconnaissance of the bay was made, under fire from the fort, by the rear-admiral, Lord Caermarthen, accompanied by Lord Cutts [q. v.]; and at a council next morning it was settled that two line-of-battle ships and six frigates should go in to batter Fort Camaret, while the troops were put on shore in a cove about a mile to the east of it. Caermarthen says nothing to confirm Burnet's statement that at this council every one except Tollemache was against the enterprise. It seems to have been afterwards, while it was in course of execution, that he was urged to give it up.

The ships, except one frigate, went in about noon on the 8th. They found they had to deal not only with the guns of the fort, but with four other batteries hitherto unobserved, besides a mortar battery, which dropped a shell upon the deck of one of them. They suffered more damage than they inflicted. There were also two other batteries, one at each end of the cove chosen for the landing-place. There, and all along the bay, intrenchments had been thrown up, which were manned by eight companies of marines and by militia, and there were some dragoons in support.

Under the heavy fire which the boats encountered, the landing of the troops was carried out ‘in a kind of confused manner.’ Tollemache had called for eight hundred volunteers at a guinea a head (, iii. 327), and took the lead of them himself. He ordered all the boats to land their men as quickly as possible. They made for a point at the south end of the cove, where the rocks may have afforded some shelter, but where there was not much room. They fouled one another, and the leading boats grounded and prevented those behind from reaching the shore. Out of eight hundred or nine hundred men in the boats, only about half landed. Some, it was said, were not eager to land.

Tollemache led his men on against the intrenchment, but he recognised that the attempt was hopeless. He was shot in the thigh, and his small party was driven back to the boats. The tide was falling, many of the boats that had grounded could not be got off, and the men in them became prisoners. The total loss, according to a statement signed by Berkeley, was 574 soldiers and 211 seamen killed, wounded, and missing (, i. 414), but it was commonly put higher. The affair lasted about three hours.

Tollemache was taken to the Dreadnought, and a council of war was held there, at which he suggested that some frigates and bomb-vessels should be sent into Brest roads to bombard the town. This proposal was rejected, because the wind that would take them in would forbid their coming out again. As Tollemache held that he was not authorised to make an attempt on any other place than Brest, it was decided to go back to Spithead. His view of his instructions was not shared by the council of state, when the expedition returned (minutes of council meeting of 13 June in Admiralty papers, Public Record Office). Tollemache was landed at Plymouth on the 11th. He was at first thought to be doing well, but his wound mortified, and he died at Plymouth on 12 June 1694. His body was taken to London, being ‘met and accompanied by the gentry of the country and the magistrates of the towns through which it passed’ (London Gazette), and it lay in state in Leicester Fields. A funeral in Westminster Abbey was proposed, but by his own desire he was buried in the family vault at Helmingham on the 30th. He was apparently unmarried.

As Shrewsbury wrote to William, ‘he was generally beloved, esteemed, and trusted.’ William himself wrote (21 June) that he was extremely affected at his loss, ‘for although I do not approve of his conduct, yet I am of opinion that his too ardent zeal to distinguish himself induced him to attempt what was impracticable.’ Three days before he had said: ‘I own to you that


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/453

 I did not suppose they would have made the attempt without having well reconnoitred the situation of the enemy to receive them; since they were long apprised of our intended attack, and made active preparations for defence.’ Russell, on hearing the news, wrote to Shrewsbury: ‘I am very sorry for poor Talmash; but before I left him I foresaw what would happen, both as to the success, and his own life. He is now dead, but I never saw a man less cut out to order such a business in my life’ (Shrewsbury Correspondence, pp. 45–7, 199).

There is a marble monument to Tollemache in Helmingham church; a bust surrounded by warlike symbols, with a long inscription which gives an outline of his life. He fell, it says, ‘not without suspicion of being made a sacrifice in this desperate attempt through the envy of some of his pretended friends.’ This suspicion of treachery was widespread and well founded. He himself is said to have shared it, and to have sent a message to the queen giving the names of certain persons, ‘that she might be on her ground against those pernicious counsellors who had retarded the descent, and by that means given France time to fortify Brest’ (, p. 92; see, first and . Cf. also , Life of Marlborough, ii. 314, and Engl. Hist. Rev. ix. 130, xii. 254). The evidence seems to show that any information that may have reached James II from Godolphin or Marlborough was no more than a confirmation of what the French government already suspected. But it is known that it was on information Louis XIV received from England that he sent Vauban to Brest. The great engineer arrived there on 13 May, and consequently had nearly a month in which to make ready for the reception of the English expedition (see, i. 198; , iii. 78).

But a different version of what Tollemache said is given in a letter written from Ford Abbey on 25 June 1694 by F. Gwyn to Robert Harley: ‘Talmash's [body?] passed by us here on Friday for London. He complained extremely before his death, that before he went from Portsmouth he had an account of the good [posture?] affairs were in at Brest to receive us, and therefore desired to know whether he should persist in his attempt, but receiving no answer he thought it his duty to go on, and found it impracticable as he before had represented, but still he thought it his duty to try. He also complained of Lord Cutts for not obeying orders, and sent a message about it to the queen a little before his death’ (Welbeck MSS. iii. 551).

The following is the picture of Tollemache drawn by Dr. Nicholas Brady in his funeral sermon: ‘His conversation was familiar and engaging, his wit lively and piercing, his judgment solid and discerning; and all these set off by a graceful person, a cheerful aspect, and an inviting air.’ Burnet says ‘he was a brave and generous man, and a good officer, very apt to animate and encourage inferior officers and soldiers; but he was much too apt to be discontented and to turn mutinous.’ To this Lord Dartmouth added that he was ‘extremely lewd.’ His character is reflected in the handsome resolute face engraved by Houbraken from the portrait by Kneller which remains in the collection of Lord Dysart at Ham House.

[There is a short memoir of Tollemache by Birch in Houbraken's and Vertue's Heads of Illustrious Persons, p. 145. Dr. Brady's sermon was published in 1684, but tells little. There are letters of his to George Clarke [q. v.], the Irish secretary at war, in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. For his military career generally, see Dalton's English Army Lists; Walton's British Standing Army; McKinnon's Coldstream Guards; Edye's Royal Marines; Douglas's Peerage of Scotland; Luttrell's Diary. For the Brest expedition the best sources are Lord Caermarthen's Journal of the Brest Expedition (1694); Mercure Historique et Politique, Juillet 1694; Burchett's Memoirs of Transactions at Sea; Augoyat's Aperçu sur les Ingénieurs, &c.; Quincy's Histoire Militaire de Louis le Grand; Shrewsbury Correspondence, ed. Coxe; Burnet's History of his Own Time, 1823.]  TOLLER, SAMUEL (d. 1821), advocate-general of Madras, was son of Thomas Toller (1732–1795), who succeeded his father-in-law, Samuel Lawrence, as preacher to the presbyterian congregation in Monkwell Street.

Samuel, who admitted at Lincoln's Inn 27 March 1781, was called to the bar, and in March 1812 was appointed advocate-general at Madras. He was subsequently knighted, and died in India on his way to Bangalore on 19 Nov. 1821. In 1793 he married Miss Cory of Cambridge, by whom he had issue.

Toller was the author of two legal works of considerable value: 1. ‘The Law of Executors and Administrators,’ London, 1800, 8vo; 7th ed. by Whitmarsh, 1838; 2nd American edit. by Gordon, Philadelphia, 1824, 8vo, 3rd American edit. by Ingraham, 1834. 2. ‘Treatise of the Law of Tithes: compiled in Part from some Notes of Richard Wooddeson’ [q. v.], London, 1808, 8vo; 3rd ed. 1822.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/454

TOLLET, ELIZABETH (1694–1754), poetess, born in 1694, was the daughter of George Tollet, commissioner of the navy in the reigns of William III and Anne. Her earlier years were spent in the Tower of London, where her father had a house; the later at Stratford and West Ham. She knew Sir Isaac Newton, who commended some of her first essays. She died at West Ham on 1 Feb. 1754, leaving her estate to her eldest nephew, George Tollet (see below).

She was the author of ‘Poems on several occasions. With Anne Boleyn to King Henry VIII. An Epistle,’ London, 1755, and [1760?], 12mo. This volume contains a musical drama entitled ‘Susanna; or Innocence Preserved,’ and some competent Latin verse. The best of her English poems are reprinted in Nichols's ‘Collection,’ vi. 64; and ‘Winter Song’ and ‘On a Death's Head’ are in Frederic Rowton's ‘Female Poets of Great Britain,’ 1848.

(1725–1779), Shakespearean critic, born in 1725, was the son of George Tollet, Elizabeth's brother, by his wife, Elizabeth Oates, of the Isle of Man. He was admitted to Lincoln's Inn 2 July 1745, and was called to the bar. He was wholly devoted to books, and led a secluded bachelor life at Betley, Staffordshire, where he died on 21 Oct. 1779. He contributed some notes to Johnson and Steevens's edition of Shakespeare. Shortly before his death, he complained that many of his valuable suggestions were appropriated by the editors in the second issue of their work without acknowledgment. Johnson and Steevens included in their edition of Shakespeare an engraving of a curious window of painted glass representing the ancient English morris-dance in the old hall at Betley, with a description by Tollet, which is reprinted in Hinchliffe's ‘Barthomley,’ pp. 193–202.


text: Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/216


text: Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/219


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/220

Page 147


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Tofts, Katherine


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Toland, John


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Toler, John


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Tolfrey, William


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Tollemache, Thomas


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Toller, Samuel


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Tollet, Elizabeth


text: Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/227


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/228

Page 153


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/237

PASS now from the east to the west by direct flight from the Vivarais over the plateau of Le Puy to where the Allier descends into the plains from the lofty ridge of the southern Cevennes.

Almost from its source the Allier has met with difficulties. It has had to contend with granite, schist, and finally with basalt, and it has had to form for itself a ravine that widens into a valley below Langeac where are coal-beds.

That ravine is peculiarly tantalising, because it is difficult to explore satisfactorily. From Langeac a road runs up the riverside only till it encounters that from Sauges to S. Privat. Beyond that there is none. The line, indeed, does follow the stream, and it is of all French lines the most remarkable for the engineering


text: Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/253


text:
Maidenhood

Maiden! with the meek, brown eyes, In whose orbs a shadow lies Like the dusk in evening skies!

Thou whose locks outshine the sun, Golden tresses, wreathed in one, As the braided streamlets run!

Standing, with reluctant feet, Where the brook and river meet, Womanhood and childhood fleet!

Gazing, with a timid glance, On the brooklet's swift advance, On the river's broad expanse!

Deep and still, that gliding stream Beautiful to thee must seem, As the river of a dream.

Then why pause with indecision, When bright angels in thy vision Beckon thee to fields Elysian?

Seest thou shadows sailing by, As the dove, with startled eye, Sees the falcon's shadow fly?

Hearest thou voices on the shore, That our ears perceive no more, Deafened by the cataract's roar?

O, thou child of many prayers! Life hath quicksands,--Life hath snares Care and age come unawares!

Like the swell of some sweet tune, Morning rises into noon, May glides onward into June.

Childhood is the bough, where slumbered Birds and blossoms many-numbered;-- Age, that bough with snows encumbered.

Gather, then, each flower that grows, When the young heart overflows, To embalm that tent of snows.

Bear a lily in thy hand; Gates of brass cannot withstand One touch of that magic wand.

Bear through sorrow, wrong, and ruth, In thy heart the dew of youth, On thy lips the smile of truth!

O, that dew, like balm, shall steal Into wounds that cannot heal, Even as sleep our eyes doth seal;

And that smile, like sunshine, dart Into many a sunless heart, For a smile of God thou art.

title: Maidenhood


text: Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/254


text:
Talk:Maidenhood

Taken from classiclit.about.com--Longfellow (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Maidenhood


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Caponier

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Caponier


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/255

E are now drawing near to the country of the Camisards, and I must give a brief sketch of the rise of the movement due to prophets and prophetesses, its culmination in revolt, and its suppression.

The Edict of Nantes had been revoked; shoals of Huguenots had left France, where the exercise of their religion was no longer tolerated; the temples had been levelled with the dust, the pastors arrested, imprisoned, and executed. Those who escaped to Geneva or Holland exhorted such of their flock as remained to


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/281

HEN the train, after quitting La Bastide, has passed through a tunnel at the highest point of the pass, you rush out of a northern clime, with northern vegetation, into a climate with tree, shrub, and flower wholly southern. The Allier and its tributaries were making full gallop for the Atlantic; you see at once torrents racing down gorges to fling themselves into the Mediterranean in which no Greenland icebergs ever float to chill alike the currents and the air. Gulfs open beside the line clothed in chestnuts, mulberries, almonds, vines; oleanders appear, and the kermes oak with its varnished leaves covering the slopes.

The line does not descend the first valley entered, but bores its way through spur after spur of the mountain chain till it reaches the furrow through which flows the Gardon d'Alais. Génolhac is passed, that


text:
Page:Federalist, Dawson edition, 1863.djvu/106

civ


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/287

Rh old church. At the Revolution it was turned into a place for clubs to assemble; but as the church was inconveniently large for the purpose, it was decided to pull it down. No one in Alais, however, could be found to set his hand to its destruction.

The last bishop, De Bausset, escaped into Switzerland at the time of the outbreak; but unable to endure exile from France he incautiously returned, was arrested, and thrown into prison. It was only due to his having been forgotten that he escaped the guillotine. In 1801, by order of Pius VII., he resigned the see to facilitate the reorganisaton of the dioceses under the Concordat, and he died in Paris in 1824. The great esplanade above the Gardon before the Place de la République, planted with plane trees, commands an extensive view over the plain green with mulberries and chestnut, and with here and there the silver-grey of the olive rising from among the darker leaves like a puff of smoke.

Alais is one of the principal centres of silkworm culture in Languedoc, and it has raised a statue to Pasteur, representing him holding a twig of mulberry in his hand, in gratitude for his discovery of the fibrine, the malady which threatened the industry, and for indicating the means of arresting the plague.

Neither the white mulberry nor the bombyx—the silkworm that feeds on its leaves—is a native of Europe. Both come from China. The history of the origin of the silkworm culture and the introduction of both the mulberry and the worm into Europe is sufficiently curious, and may be summed up in a few lines.

The Chinese assert that the discovery of the use of silk and how to weave it took place in the year