text:
Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe/Dissent Barbour

Mr. Justice BARBOUR, dissenting.

I dissent from the opinion just delivered in this case; and will very briefly state the reasons. It is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Alabama, affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of Baldwin county of that state, in favour of the defendant in error.

The error alleged is, that the Circuit Court, whose judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court, misconstrued the act of Congress, entitled 'an act granting certain lots of ground to the corporation of the city of Mobile, and to certain individuals of said city,' passed the 26th May, 1824; in the charge which it gave to the jury, at the trial, as stated in the bill of exceptions in the record.

Before I state the charge, it will be necessary with a view to understand its bearing, to state the material facts appearing in the bill of exceptions to have been proven, and upon which the charge was founded.

Pollard's heirs, at the trial, to maintain the issue on their part, gave in evidence a concession for the lot in question from the Spanish authorities, dated 12th of December, 1809, but which had been reported against, and rejected by the commissioners of the United States, appointed to investigate and report upon such claims; because of the want of improvement and occupancy. They then gave in evidence a patent dated 14th of March, 1837, issued by virtue of an act of Congress, passed the 2d July, 1836, entitled an act for the relief of William Pollard's heirs; the patent embraced the lot in question.

The defendant then gave in evidence, a Spanish grant, dated the 9th of June, 1802, to John Forbes and Company, for a lot of ground, eighty feet front, on Royal street, with a depth of three hundred and four feet to the east, and bounded on the south by Government street; which grant was recognised and confirmed by an act of Congress.

It was proven that the lot in question is east of Water street, and immediately in front of the lot conveyed by the above-mentioned grant, to John Forbes and Company, and only separated from it by Water street. It was proven, that previously to the year 1819, and until filled up, as hereafter stated, the lot in question was, at ordinary high tide, covered with water, and mainly so, at all stages of the water; that the ordinary high water flowed from the east to about the middle of what is now Water street, between the lot in question, and that embraced in the grant to John Forbes and Company. John Forbes and Company had been in possession of the lot contained in their grant, since the year 1802; and it was known under the Spanish government as a water lot; no lots at that time existing between it and the water.

In the year 1823, no one being in possession, and the lot in question being under water, a certain Curtis Lewis, without any title or claim, took possession of it, and filled it up east of Water street, filling up north of Government street, and at the corner of same and Water street; that Lewis remained a few months in possession, when he was ousted by one of the firm of John Forbes and Company, who erected a smith's shop thereon, and they were then turned out by said Lewis, by legal process, who then retained possession until he conveyed it. When Lewis took possession, Water street at that place could be passed by carts, and was common.

The defendant connected himself, in title, to the lot in question, by means of conveyances, with John Forbes and Company, with Curtis Lewis, and the mayor and aldermen of Mobile. It was admitted that the lot in question lies between Church street, and North Boundary street.

On this state of facts, the Court charged the jury, that if the lot conveyed as above to John Forbes and Company, by the deed aforesaid, was known as a water lot under the Spanish government; and if the lot in question had been improved at and previous to the 26th of May, 1824, and was east of Water street and immediately in front of the lot so conveyed to John Forbes & Company; then the lot in question, passed by the act of Congress of 26th May, 1824, to those at that time owning and occupying, so as above conveyed to John Forbes and Company; and that it was immaterial who made the improvements on the lot on the east side of Water street, being the one in question: that by the aforesaid act of Congress, the proprietor of the lot on the west side of Water street, known as above, that is, as a water lot, under the Spanish government, was entitled to the lot on the east side of it.

Whether this charge was correct or not, depends upon the construction of the act of 1824: and I now proceed to show, that it is, as I think, precisely in accordance with the true construction of that act, nay, that it is almost the very echo of it. The second section provides, 'that all the right and claim of the United States to so many of the lots of ground east of Water street, and between Church street and North Boundary street, now known as water lots, as are situated between the channel of the river, and the front of the lots known under the Spanish government as water lots, in the said city of Mobile, whereon improvements have been made, be, and the same are hereby vested in the several proprietors and occupants of each of the lots, heretofore fronting on the river Mobile, except,' &c. I will at present pause here, and examine the meaning of this section, independently of the exception; I will afterwards examine the operation of that. Now the questions are, who were the grantees, and what the things granted by this section? And first, who were the grantees? They were the proprietors and occupants of the lots, heretofore fronting on the river Mobile. It appears from the record, that the lots on the western side of Water street, were the lots heretofore fronting on the river Mobile, and that these were known under the Spanish government as water lots.

There were lots at that time existing between them and the water. The grantees, then contemplated by the act of Congress, were those persons who owned lots known as water lots under the Spanish government; because those were they which heretofore fronted on the river Mobile: and the record, as I have said, fixes their locality on the western side of Water street.

Next let us inquire, what were the things granted? These were the lots east of Water street, and between Church and North Boundary street, now known as water lots, and situated between the channel of the river and the front of the lots, known under the Spanish government as water lots, whereon improvements have been made.

It appears that the lot in question answers this description, as to locality in every particular; that improvements had been made upon it, and that it was in front of the lot owned by John Forbes and Company, which lay on the western side of Water street, and which originally fronted on Mobile river, reaching to it; and was known under the Spanish government as a water lot. If we now apply the charge of the Court to this state of facts, we shall see that it accords with the language of the law, with extraordinary precision. The jury were told, hypothetically, that if the lot conveyed to John Forbes and Company was known as a water lot, under the Spanish government, which hypothesis is proven to be a fact by the record; and if the lot in question had been improved, previously to the 26th of May, 1824, and this fact also clearly appears from the record; and was east of Water street, and immediately in front of the lot of John Forbes and Company, and this fact, too, as clearly appears from the record; then, that the lot in question passed by the act of Congress of May 1824, to those at that time owning and occupying the lot conveyed to John Forbes and Company.

I repeat, that this charge so fully accords with the law, that it may almost be said to be an echo of its language. I have said that all the facts which were put hypothetically to the jury, were proven by the record; but it was not at all necessary that this should have been done. When we are examining the correctness of a charge given to a jury, that if a given state of facts existed, a particular legal result would follow, we must assume the existence of the facts; because the charge only instructs the jury that such is the law, if the facts exist, of which they are to judge; and if the facts do not exist, then the charge, by its very terms, does not apply.

But the Court told the jury, that it was immaterial by whom the improvements were made. I cannot doubt the correctness of this part of the charge: in this, too, the Court echoed the very language of the act of Congress, 'whereon improvements have been made.' Now, as the law itself does not say by whom the improvements have been made, but only that they must have been made; if the Court had said, that they must have been made by any particular person, they would have put another condition into the law, and have required what it did not require. It is said, however, that the law could not have contemplated giving to one man the benefit of improvements made by another. If such could even be supposed to be the proper construction, the facts in the record, would meet it; because it appears, that Forbes and Company did make an improvement on the lot in question, as also did Curtis Lewis, under whom the defendant claims. But the law, to my mind, clearly does not contemplate giving the new water lot to a person, because he made improvements on it; if it had so intended, it would have been so said: but its purpose and its plain language is, that where the new water lot is improved, it shall pass to the owner of the old water lot. The policy of this is obvious. The old water lot originally went to the water; the new water lot did not then exist, having since come into existence; the purpose of the statute was to place the owner of the old water lot in his original position, that of still going to the water, which would be effected by giving him the new water lot, without inquiring by whom it was improved.

But it is supposed that the claim of Pollard's heirs comes within the benefit of the exception, in this section, which, so far as it respects this case, is in these words, 'Except where the Spanish government has made a new grant or order of survey for the same, during the time at which they had the power to grant the same; in which case, the right and claim of the United States, shall be, and is hereby, vested in the person to whom such grant or order of survey was made, or in his legal representatives.'

It will be observed, that this exception only extends to such grants or orders of survey, as were made by the Spanish government when they had power to make the same. The grant from the Spanish government to Pollard, which is supposed to be within the benefit of this exception, bears date in 1809; if at that time the Spanish government had not power to make the grant, then the exception, by its very terms, does not embrace the case.

Now this Court solemnly decided in Foster and Elam vs. Neilson, 2 Peters, 254, and again in Garcia vs. Lee, 12 Peters, 511, that in 1809, the date of Pollard's grant, the Spanish government had not the power to make grants in the territory of which the lot in question was a part; and that all such as were made after the treaty of St. Ildefonso were void.

Consistently with these decisions, I think, that at the date of Pollard's grant, the Spanish government had not the power to make it; and it follows, that it is not within the benefit of the exception.

Some reliance seemed to be placed upon the proviso to this section, which is in these words: 'Provided, that nothing in this act contained, shall be construed to affect the claim or claims, if any such there be, of any individual or individuals, or of any body politic or corporate.' Now, it is too clear for argument, that this proviso cannot aid the claim of Pollard's heirs, upon the assumption that they claim under the exception; because the object of the proviso is to guard any possible claim of others against being affected by the grant of Congress; either in the enacting part of the cession, or in the exception. I have not thought it necessary to bring the first section of the act into the argument, because that only gives to the city of Mobile the right and claim of the United States to such lots as were not confirmed to individuals, by that or any former act; and as the second section does confirm the claims to this lot, either, as I think, to the proprietor of the old water lot, in front of which it lies; or, as is argued, to Pollard's heirs, as holding a Spanish grant, nothing passed to the city of Mobile, whichsoever construction shall prevail; and I will add, that if any thing did pass to the city of Mobile, it appears by the record, that their title or claim was vested in the defendant.

Finally, it was argued, that the title of Pollard's heirs was perfected by the act of Congress of July, 1836, which confirmed to them the lot in question by metes and bounds: but the decisive answer to that is, that that act contains a proviso, that it should only operate as a relinquishment, on the part of the United States, of all their right and claim to the lot, and should not interfere with or affect the claim or claims of third persons. Now, if, as I clearly think, the right of the United States had passed by the act of 1824, to the owner of the old water lot, in front of which the one in question lay, then the United States had no right or claim to relinquish by the act of 1836. And the same consequence precisely would follow, if, as the plaintiffs contend, the right of the United States passed to them by virtue of the exception in the act of 1824. So that whatsoever may be the construction of the enacting part of that act, or of the exception, it would equally follow, that there was no claim or title in the United States, which the act of 1836 could operate to convey or relinquish.

For these reasons, I am clearly of opinion that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama is correct, and ought to be affirmed.

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


text:
Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe/Dissent Catron

Mr. Justice CATRON, dissenting.

The town of Mobile was first settled and governed by France; and by the treaty of 1763, ceded to Great Britain, and attached to Florida: by the treaty of 1783, Florida was ceded by Great Britain to Spain. Florida proper, previous to the treaty of 1763, extended to the river Perdido, and only included the country east of it; which river was the boundary between France and Spain, from the first settlement of the country up to 1763. 2 Peters, 300. After 1783, and up to 1800, Spain owned Florida and Louisiana; that power then retroceded to France Louisiana to the same extent it had when France owned it; that is, all west of the Perdido; disregarding the fact that Great Britain had attached the country west of the Perdido to Florida, and that for the purposes of government, Spain, after 1783, had continued to recognise and govern as Florida, all the country east of the Mississippi, north of the Iberville, and south of our boundary in the 30° of latitude. But that the country passed to France as far east as the Perdido, by the treaty of St. Ildefonso of 1800, is the established doctrine of this government, and which is fully recognised by this Court. And by the treaty of cession of 1803, the French Republic ceded Louisiana to the United States, in full sovereignty, with 'all public lots and squares, vacant lands, and all public buildings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifices, which are not private property.'

Owing to the confusion growing out of the circumstance, that Great Britain, after 1763, had attached the country west of the Perdido to Florida, and Spain had, after 1783, treated and governed it as part of Florida; it was assumed by Spain, that no part of the province passed to France by the treaty of 1800, or to the United States, by the cession of France of 1803. And Spain, for some nine years after the cession, continued to hold and govern the country, and until we took forcible possession of it.

All title to the vacant lots and squares in the town of Mobile, having been vested in France, by the treaty of 1800, and in the United States, by the cession of 1803, no interest in the soil afterwards remained in the king and government of Spain; and all attempts to grant lands by that power were merely void. Such is the settled doctrine of this Court, as holden in Foster and Elam vs. Neilson, 2 Peters, and re-affirmed in Garcia vs. Lee, 12 Peters. So Congress has uniformly, from 1804, regarded our title, and the assumptions of Spain. 2 Peters, 304.

The rapid growth and extensive commerce of the city of Mobile, in 1824, rendered it expedient that the city should improve its facilities in regard to navigation; the bay in its front being shallow, extensive wharves and other improvements were indispensable. To accommodate the city, Congress passed an act (ch. 415) of that year, vesting in the mayor and aldermen, and their successors, 'for the sole use and benefit of the city, forever, the Hospital and Bakehouse lots; and also all the right and claim of the United States to all the lots not sold or confirmed to individuals, either by that act, or any former act of Congress, and to which no equitable title existed in favour of any individual, under that act, or any former act.' The grant to extend to all public lots lying in front of the city, and between high-water mark and the channel of the river, and between Church and North Boundary streets. Such is the first section of the act; and if nothing more was found in it, there can be no doubt the city took the title to the square, a part of which is in controversy; as the only exceptions in favour of outstanding claims are those conferred by acts of Congress.

The plaintiffs' claim is founded on a concession made by the Spanish Governor of Florida, in 1809; and was a permit to William Pollard, to use and occupy, for the purpose of depositing lumber from his sawmill, the space between Forbes and Company's canal and the king's wharf. As the concession made in 1809 was wholly void, it is useless to inquire into its character; or the nature of the title intended to be conferred.

But it is insisted the claim is excepted from the first section of the act of 1824, by the second; which provides, that in case of any lot, &c., where the 'Spanish government has made a new grant or order of survey for the same, during the time at which they had the power to grant the same; in which case, the right and claim of the United States shall be, and is hereby, vested in the person to whom such alienation, grant, or order of survey was made; or in his legal representatives.'

The concession of 1809 was made in the face of the act of 1804, (ch. 38, sec. 14. 2 Story's Laws, 939,) pronouncing all grants by the Spanish authorities after the cession, void; Spain certainly had no power to make it, and therefore the act of 1824 does not cover the claim. If it had, a title in fee by force of that act would have vested in Pollard's heirs; and the special act of 1836, in their favour, been superfluous. But neither the parties interested, nor Congress, seem to have supposed the title confirmed by the act of 1824.

The statute also provides, that where improvements had been made on the new water lots east of Water street, that then the title should vest in the proprietor of the old water lot opposite, on the west side of said street; and on this provision, the charge of the Court below turned; that Court holding the title to the part of the premises in controversy to have vested in Forbes and Company, because it was improved at the date of the act of 1824; and that it was immaterial by whom the improvement has been made.

The the improvements referred to by the act must have existed on the new and eastern water lots, is, as I think, free from doubt: but that Forbes and Company could acquire a benefit from the improvement made by Lewis is somewhat doubtful: as, however, no critical construction of the act on this point is called for, none has been made. The act of 1824 passed the title to the property covered by the patent issued by virtue of the act of 1836, unless it was excepted from the first act, and this is the only question in the cause: for as the plaintiff must recover by the strength of his own title, it is immaterial whether the city of Mobile, or Forbes and Company, took by the act of 1824. The charge of the Court, in substance, held the patent on which the lessors rely to be void. On the admitted facts, I think it clearly was so; and that the reasons for the judgment, if proper on the whole case, are immaterial.

Such is the uniform rule in actions of ejectment, where a charge of an inferior Court is re-examined on a writ of error.

The defendant, however, shows himself clothed with the titles of the city of Mobile, of Forbes and Company, and of Lewis, on which, the Court pronounced him to have the better right; and, for the reasons above stated, I think, correctly.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, if it ordered and adjudged by this Court, that the judgment of the said Supreme Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed with costs; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Supreme Court, that such further proceedings may be had therein as to law and justice may appertain.


text:
United States v. Wood (39 U.S. 430)/Dissent Thompson

Mr. Justice THOMPSON, dissenting.

The question certified in the record is, whether it was necessary, in order to convict the defendant of perjury, to produce, on the part of the prosecution, at least one living witness, corroborated by another witness, or by circumstances, to contradict the oath of the defendant.

The rule, as we find it laid down in the elementary books on this subject, is, that to convict a party of the crime of perjury, two witnesses are necessary to contradict him as to the fact upon which the perjury is assigned: and the reason assigned for the rule is, that if one witness only is produced, there will only be one oath against another. This rule, however, in the early adjudged cases, was so modified as to require but one living witness, corroborated by circumstances, to contradict the oath of the defendant; and with this modification the rule has remained until the present day.

In the present case, the fact on which the perjury was assigned related to the actual cost of the goods, at the time and place of exportation. This was a simple question of fact, susceptible of proof by witnesses, like any other matter of fact. There was nothing, therefore, growing out of the nature of the inquiry, that rendered the proof by witnesses impossible, so as to take the case out of the rules of evidence, in relation to the crime of perjury. No living witness was produced to contradict the oath of the defendant at the customhouse, as to the original cost of the goods. His letters and certain invoice books were produced to sustain the indictment; and these might have been sufficient to warrant the jury in convicting the defendant, if such evidence is sufficient to convict a party of the crime of perjury, without the production of at least one living witness. It is, as has been already mentioned, laid down in the books as a technical rule in perjury, that there must be at least one witness and corroborating circumstances to convict of this crime: that there must be oath against oath, as to the corpus delicti.

When the books speak of a witness, they always mean oral testimony. It would hardly be considered as correct legal language, to call a letter of the defendant a witness against him. It was evidence, but not evidence by a witness. The rule, as originally laid down in the elementary treatises on evidence, requiring two witnesses to contradict the party on the matter assigned as perjury, was so modified or relaxed as not to require two witnesses to disprove the facts sworn to by the defendant. But if any material circumstances are proved by other witnesses, in confirmation of the witness who gives the direct testimony of perjury, it may turn the scale, and warrant a conviction. And in England one case occurred, as reported in a note in the seventh volume of the English Common Law Reports, page 306, where the evidence consisted of the contradictory oaths of the party accused, upon the same matter of fact in which the perjury was assigned. It was held, that in such case there was oath against oath, and the perjury might be assigned upon either; and that it might be left to the jury to judge of the motive. The authority of this case, however, has been very much doubted. But the present case does not come within that rule, even if we are disposed to follow the English Courts on that subject; for the letters of the defendant cannot certainly be said to be evidence under oath, so as to charge him with contradictory oaths on the fact assigned as perjury. Rules of evidence are rules of law, applicable to the rights of persons as well as to the rights of property; and parties are entitled to have their rights tested and decided by such rules, as much in one case as the other. This rule, however, in perjury, being a technical rule, may in many cases be difficult if not impracticable to be carried into execution. If it falls within the proper province of the Court entirely to dispense with the rule, and put the evidence in perjury upon the same footing as other criminal offences, I should not be disposed to dissent from it; if, as a new rule, it was made to operate prospectively. But if it is intended to affirm the doctrine urged at the bar, that no such rule of evidence ever existed, as to require in the case of perjury at least one living witness, and circumstances in corroboration of his oath, in contradiction to the party charged upon the matter assigned as the perjury; it would, in my judgment, be at variance with a rule universally laid down in all the elementary treatises on the subject of evidence; and as yet never dispensed with, or ever called in question in any adjudication that has fallen under my notice. And that this rule still exists in the English Courts, is shown by the late case of Rex vs. Mayhew, 6 Carr. and Payne, 315, decided in the year 1834. The perjury in that case was alleged to have been committed by the defendant (who was an attorney) in an affidavit made by him, to oppose a motion made in the Court of Chancery on behalf of the prosecutor, to refer the defendant's bills of costs for taxation. To prove the perjury, one witness was called: and in lieu of a second witness, it was proposed to put in the defendant's bill of costs, delivered by him to the prosecutor. It was objected that this was not sufficient, as the bills had not been delivered by the defendant on oath. But Denman, Chief Justice, said, 'I have quite made up my mind that the bill delivered by the defendant is sufficient evidence, or that even a letter written by the defendant, contradicting his statement on oath, would be sufficient to make it unnecessary to have a second witness.'

There was no intimation here, that a letter, or any number of letters, from the defendant, contradicting his statement under oath, would dispense with the technical rule in perjury, requiring at least one witness, and corroborating circumstances. The question was, as to what circumstances or evidence would dispense with a second witness.

In the present case, it may be difficult and perhaps impracticable to procure any living witness to contradict the oath of the defendant. But it is more congenial with the humane principles of our criminal law, that a guilty man should escape, than to convict him upon evidence heretofore considered as insufficient, according to what is admitted to have been the settled rule of law. Answering the question put in the record in the negative, is abolishing that rule and introducing one entirely new; and putting the crime of perjury on the same footing as any other criminal offence, with respect to the evidence necessary to convict the accused. If there are any great public considerations calling for such an innovation upon the rule of evidence in cases like the present, let it be altered by the proper tribunal, and under the general rules of evidence applicable to other criminal cases. The evidence derived from the letters of the defendant, is perhaps the best evidence the nature of the case will admit of. But it is an entire misapplication of this general rule to the present case, if there is a special and technical rule in the case of perjury that there must be at least one living witness, and corroborating circumstances, to convict of that crime. I do not feel myself authorized to dispense with what I understand to be admitted, the heretofore settled rule of evidence, which I consider a rule of law, in the case of perjury; and to apply this new rule to the present case by giving it a retrospective operation.

I am accordingly of opinion, that the question put in the record, ought to be answered in the affirmative.

Note.-1 Roscoe's Crim. Law, 28. 685. 1 Phil. Ev. 151. 2 Russel's Crim. Law, 479. 3 Starkie's Ev. 1144. Archbold's Crim. Plead. 157. 2 Har. Pl. C. ch. 46, sec. 2. 4 Blackstone's Com. 358. 10 Mod. 193. 6 Cowen, 120. 6 Carr. and Payne, 315. 7 Com. Law Rep. 306, and notes. 25 Com. Law Rep. 415. 13 Petersdorff, Ab. tit. Perjury, E. Dane, Ab. Ch. 210, art. 3, sec. 4. Sid. 418. Cited, 16 Viner, Perjury, K. 1 Nott and M'Cord, 547.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, and on the point and question on which the judges of the said Circuit Court were opposed in opinion, and which was certified to this court for its opinion, agreeably to the act of Congress in such cases made and provided, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this Court, that in order to convict the defendant of the crime charged in the indictment, it is not necessary on the part of the prosecution, to produce a living witness, if the jury shall believe the evidence from the written testimony sufficient to establish the charge, that the defendant made a false and corrupt oath, as to the cost of the goods imported in the Sheridan, enumerated in the invoice upon which the defendant made an entry by taking the owners' oath at the customhouse. Whereupon it is ordered and adjudged by this Court, that it be so certified to the said Circuit Court, accordingly.


text:
Balaustion's Adventure

Dedication
TO THE COUNTESS COWPER.

If I mention the simple truth: that this poem absolutely owes its existence to you — who not only suggested, but imposed on me as a task, what has proved the most delightful of May-month amusements — I shall seem honest, indeed, but hardly prudent; for, how good and beautiful ought such a poem to be!

Euripides might fear little; but I, also, have an interest in the performance: and what wonder if I beg you to suffer that it make, in another and far easier sense, its nearest possible approach to those Greek qualities of goodness and beauty, by laying itself gratefully at your feet?

R. B.

London, July 23, 1871.

Contents

 * Lines 1-357
 * Balaustion's recitation:—
 * Lines 358-966
 * Lines 967-1751
 * Lines 1752-2233
 * Lines 2234-2705

title: Balaustion's Adventure


text:
Author:William Francis Lynch

Works

 * Narrative Of The United States Expedition To The River Jordan And The Dead Sea

title: Author:William Francis Lynch


text:
Balaustion's Adventure/I

About that strangest, saddest, sweetest song I, when a girl, heard in Kameiros once, And, after, saved my life by? Oh, so glad To tell you the adventure!

Petalé, Phullis, Charopé, Chrusion! You must know, This "after" fell in that unhappy time When poor reluctant Nikias, pushed by fate, Went faulteringly against Syracuse; And there shamed Athens, lost her ships and men, And gained a grave, or death without a grave. I was at Rhodes — the isle, not Rhodes the town, Mine was Kameiros — when the news arrived: Our people rose in tumult, cried "No more Duty to Athens, let us join the League, And side with Sparta, share the spoil, — at worst, Abjure a headship that will ruin Greece!" And so, they sent to Knidos for a fleet To come and help revolters. Ere help came, — Girl as I was, and never out of Rhodes The whole of my first fourteen years of life, But nourished with Ilissian mother's-milk, — I passionately cried to who would hear And those who loved me at Kameiros — "No! Never throw Athens off for Sparta's sake — Never disloyal to the life and light Of the whole world worth calling world at all! Rather go die at Athens, lie outstretched For feet to trample on, before the gate Of Diomedes or the Hippadai, Before the temples and among the tombs, Than tolerate the grim felicity Of harsh Lakonia! Ours the fasts and feasts, Choës and Chutroi; ours the sacred grove, Agora, Dikasteria, Poikilé, Pnux, Keramikos; Salamis in sight, Psuttalia, Marathon itself, not far! Ours the great Dionusiac theatre, And tragic triad of immortal fames, Aischulos, Sophokles, Euripides! To Athens, all of us that have a soul, Follow me!" And I wrought so with my prayer, That certain of my kinsfolk crossed the strait And found a ship at Kaunos; well-disposed Because the Captain — where did he draw breath First but within Psuttalia? Thither fled A few like-minded as ourselves. We turned The glad prow westward, soon were out at sea, Pushing, brave ship with the vermilion cheek, Proud for our heart's true harbour. But a wind Lay ambushed by Point Malea of bad fame, And leapt out, bent us from our course. Next day Broke stormless, and so next blue day and next. "But whither bound in this white waste?" We plagued The pilot's old experience: "Cos or Crete?" Because he promised us the land ahead. While we strained eyes to share in what he saw, The Captain's shout startled us; round we rushed: What hung behind us but a pirate-ship Panting for the good prize! "Row! harder row! Row for dear life!" the Captain cried: "'t is Crete, Friendly Crete looming large there! Beat this craft That's but a keles, one-benched pirate-bark, Lokrian, or that bad breed off Thessaly! Only, so cruel are such water-thieves, No man of you, no woman, child, or slave, But falls their prey, once let them board our boat!" So, furiously our oarsmen rowed and rowed; And when the oars flagged somewhat, dash and dip, As we approached the coast and safety, so That we could hear behind us plain the threats And curses of the pirate panting up In one more throe and passion of pursuit, — Seeing our oars flag in the rise and fall, I sprang upon the altar by the mast And sang aloft, — some genius prompting me, — That song of ours which saved at Salamis: "O sons of Greeks, go, set your country free, Free your wives, free your children, free the fanes O' the Gods, your fathers founded, — sepulchres They sleep in! Or save all, or all be lost!" Then, in a frenzy, so the noble oars Churned the black water white, that well away We drew, soon saw land rise, saw hills grow up, Saw spread itself a sea-wide town with towers, Not fifty stadia distant; and, betwixt A large bay and a small, the islet-bar, Even Ortugia's self — oh, luckless we! For here was Sicily and Syracuse: We ran upon the lion from the wolf. Ere we drew breath, took counsel, out there came A galley, hailed us. "Who asks entry here In war-time? Are you Sparta's friend or foe?" "Kaunians," — our Captain judged his best reply, "The mainland-seaport that belongs to Rhodes; Rhodes that casts in her lot now with the League, Forsaking Athens, — you have heard belike!" "Ay, but we heard all Athens in one ode Just now! we heard her in that Aischulos! You bring a boatful of Athenians here, Kaunians although you be: and prudence bids, For Kaunos' sake, why, carry them unhurt To Kaunos, if you will: for Athens' sake, Back must you, though ten pirates blocked the bay! We want no colony from Athens here, With memories of Salamis, forsooth, To spirit up our captives, that pale crowd I' the quarry, whom the daily pint of corn Keeps in good order and submissiveness." Then the grey Captain prayed them by the Gods, And by their own knees, and their fathers' beards, They should not wickedly thrust suppliants back, But save the innocent on traffic bound — Or, may be, some Athenian family Perishing of desire to die at home, — From that vile foe still lying on its oars, Waiting the issue in the distance. Vain! Words to the wind! And we were just about To turn and face the foe, as some tired bird Barbarians pelt at, drive with shouts away From shelter in what rocks, however rude, She makes for, to escape the kindled eye, Split beak, crook'd claw o' the creature, cormorant Or ossifrage, that, hardly baffled, hangs Afloat i' the foam, to take her if she turn. So were we at destruction's very edge, When those o' the galley, as they had discussed A point, a question raised by somebody, A matter mooted in a moment, — "Wait!" Cried they (and wait we did, you may be sure) "That song was veritable Aischulos, Familiar to the mouth of man and boy, Old glory: how about Euripides? The newer and not yet so famous bard, He that was born upon the battle-day While that song and the salpinx sounded him Into the world, first sound, at Salamis — Might you know any of his verses too?"

Now, some one of the Gods inspired this speech: Since ourselves knew what happened but last year — How, when Gulippos gained his victory Over poor Nikias, poor Demosthenes, And Syracuse condemned the conquered force To dig and starve i' the quarry, branded them — Freeborn Athenians, brute-like in the front With horse-head brands, — ah, "Region of the Steed"! — Of all these men immersed in misery, It was found none had been advantaged so By aught in the past life he used to prize And pride himself concerning, — no rich man By riches, no wise man by wisdom, no Wiser man still (as who loved more the Muse) By storing, at brain's edge and tip of tongue, Old glory, great plays that had long ago Made themselves wings to fly about the world, — Not one such man was helped so at his need As certain few that (wisest they of all) Had, at first summons, oped heart, flung door wide At the new knocking of Euripides, Nor drawn the bolt with who cried "Decadence! And, after Sophokles, be nature dumb!" Such, — and I see in it God Bacchos' boon To souls that recognized his latest child, He who himself, born latest of the Gods, Was stoutly held impostor by mankind, — Such were in safety: any who could speak A chorus to the end, or prologize, Roll out a rhesis, wield some golden length Stiffened by wisdom out into a line. Or thrust and parry in bright monostich, Teaching Euripides to Syracuse — Any such happy man had prompt reward: If he lay bleeding on the battle-field They staunched his wounds and gave him drink and food; If he were slave i' the house, for reverence They rose up, bowed to who proved master now, And bade him go free, thank Euripides! Ay, and such did so: many such, he said, Returning home to Athens, sought him out, The old bard in the solitary house, And thanked him ere they went to sacrifice. I say, we knew that story of last year!

Therefore, at mention of Euripides, The Captain crowed out "Euoi, praise the God! Oöp, boys, bring our owl-shield to the fore! Out with our Sacred Anchor! Here she stands, Balaustion! Strangers, greet the lyric girl! Euripides? Babai! what a word there 'scaped Your teeth's enclosure, quoth my grandsire's song! Why, fast as snow in Thrace, the voyage through, Has she been falUng thick in flakes of him! Frequent as figs at Kaunos, Kaunians said. Balaustion, stand forth and confirm my speech! Now it was some whole passion of a play; Now, peradventure, but a honey-drop That slipt its comb i' the chorus. If there rose A star, before I could determine steer Southward or northward — if a cloud surprised Heaven, ere I fairly hollaed 'Furl the sail! —' She had at finger's end both cloud and star; Some thought that perched there, tame and tuneable, Fitted with wings; and still, as off it flew, 'So sang Euripides,' she said, 'so sang The meteoric poet of air and sea, Planets and the pale populace of heaven, The mind of man, and all that's made to soar!' And so, although she has some other name, We only call her Wild-pomegranate-flower, Balaustion; since, where'er the red bloom burns I' the dull dark verdure of the bounteous tree, Dethroning, in the Rosy Isle, the rose, You shall find food, drink, odour, all at once; Cool leaves to bind about an aching brow, And, never much away, the nightingale. Sing them a strophe, with the turn-again, Down to the verse that ends all, proverb-like. And save us, thou Balaustion, bless the name!"

But I cried "Brother Greek! better than so, — Save us, and I have courage to recite The main of a whole play from first to last; That strangest, saddest, sweetest song of his, At Athens, in Glaukinos' archonship, But only this year reached our Isle o' the Rose. I saw it at Kameiros; played the same, They say, as for the right Lenean feast In Athens; and beside the perfect piece — Its beauty and the way it makes you weep, — There is much honour done your own loved God Herakles, whom you house i' the city here Nobly, the Temple wide Greece talks about! I come a suppliant to your Herakles! Take me and put me on his temple-steps. To tell you his achievement as I may, And, that told, he shall bid you set us free!"
 * which was taught, long years ago

Then, because Greeks are Greeks, and hearts are hearts, And poetry is power, — they all outbroke In a great joyous laughter with much love: "Thank Herakles for the good holiday! Make for the harbour! Row, and let voice ring. 'In we row, bringing more Euripides!' All the crowd, as they lined the harbour now, 'More of Euripides!' — took up the cry. We landed; the whole city, soon astir, Came rushing out of gates in common joy To the suburb temple; there they stationed me O' the topmost step: and plain I told the play, Just as I saw it; what the actors said, And what I saw, or thought I saw the while, At our Kameiros theatre, clean-scooped Out of a hill-side, with the sky above And sea before our seats in marble row: Told it, and, two days more, repeated it, Until they sent us on our way again With good words and great wishes.

Oh, for me — A wealthy Syracusan brought a whole Talent and bade me take it for myself; I left it on the tripod in the fane, — For had not Herakles a second time Wrestled with Death and saved devoted ones? — Thank-offering to the hero. And a band Of captives, whom their lords grew kinder to Because they called the poet countryman, Sent me a crown of wild-pomegranate-flower: So, I shall live and die Balaustion now. But one — one man — one youth, — three days, each day, (If, ere I lifted up my voice to speak, I gave a downward glance by accident) Was found at foot o' the temple. When we sailed, There, in the ship too, was he found as well, Having a hunger to see Athens too. We reached Peiraieus; when I landed — lo, He was beside me. Anthesterion-month Is just commencing: when its moon rounds full, We are to marry. O Euripides! I saw the master: when we found ourselves (Because the young man needs must follow me) Firm on Peiraieus, I demanded first Whither to go and find him. Would you think? The story how he saved us made some smile: They wondered strangers were exorbitant In estimation of Euripides. He was not Aischulos nor Sophokles: — "Then, of our younger bards who boast the bay, Had I sought Agathon, or Iophon, Or, what now had it been Kephisophon? A man that never kept good company, The most unsociable of poet-kind, All beard that was not freckle in his face!" I soon was at the tragic house, and saw The master, held the sacred hand of him And laid it to my lips. Men love him not: How should they? Nor do they much love his friend Sokrates: but those two have fellowship: Sokrates often comes to hear him read, And never misses if he teach a piece. Both, being old, will soon have company, Sit with their peers above the talk. Meantime, He lives as should a statue in its niche; Cold walls enclose him, mostly darkness there, Alone, unless some foreigner uncouth Breaks in, sits, stares an hour, and so departs, Brain-stuffed with something to sustain his life, Dry to the marrow mid much merchandize. How should such know and love the man?

Why, mark! Even when I told the play and got the praise, There spoke up a brisk little somebody, Critic and whippersnapper, in a rage To set things right: "The girl departs from truth! Pretends she saw what was not to be seen, Making the mask of the actor move, forsooth! 'Then a fear flitted o'er the wife's white face,' — 'Then frowned the father,' — 'then the husband shook,' — 'Then from the festal forehead slipt each spray, 'And the heroic mouth's gay grace was gone;' — As she had seen each naked fleshly face. And not the merely-painted mask it wore!" Well, is the explanation difficult? What's poetry except a power that makes? And, speaking to one sense, inspires the rest, Pressing them all into its service; so That who sees painting, seems to hear as well The speech that 's proper for the painted mouth; And who hears music, feels his solitude Peopled at once — for how count heart-beats plain Unless a company, with hearts which beat, Come close to the musician, seen or no? And who receives true verse at eye or ear, Takes in (with verse) time, place, and person too, So, links each sense on to its sister-sense, Grace-like: and what if but one sense of three Front you at once? The sidelong pair conceive Thro' faintest touch of finest finger-tips, — Hear, see and feel, in faith's simplicity, Alike, what one was sole recipient of: Who hears the poem, therefore, sees the play.

Enough and too much! Hear the play itself! Under the grape-vines, by the streamlet-side, Close to Baccheion; till the cool increase, And other stars steal on the evening-star, And so, we homeward flock i' the dusk, we five! You will expect, no one of all the words O' the play but is grown part now of my soul, Since the adventure. 'T is the poet speaks: But if I, too, should try and speak at times, Leading your love to where my love, perchance, Climbed earlier, found a nest before you knew — Why, bear with the poor climber, for love's sake! Look at Baccheion's beauty opposite. The temple with the pillars at the porch! See you not something beside masonry? What if my words wind in and out the stone As yonder ivy, the God's parasite? Though they leap all the way the pillar leads, Festoon about the marble, foot to frieze, And serpentiningly enrich the roof, Toy with some few bees and a bird or two, — What then? The column holds the cornice up!

title: Balaustion's Adventure/I


text:
Author:Charles Lawrence

Works

 * Charles Lawrence's expulsion orders (1755)

title: Author:Charles Lawrence


text: A Catalogue of Books

title: A Catalogue of Books


text:
User talk:Suzannecole

--Eliyak T · C 08:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Suzannecole


text:
Page:Shakespeare - First Folio Faithfully Reproduced, Methuen, 1910.djvu/914

398


text:
User:DeirdreAnne/Sandbox

 * History of King Richard III (1513/1518)
 * Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation (1534)
 * Lady Fortune, lengthy poem berating those who trust in luck
 * Letter to his daughter, Margaret, July 5, 1535 - the night before he was beheaded.
 * Prayer of Thomas More, written during his imprisonment in the Tower of London
 * Prayer of Thomas More, written during his imprisonment in the Tower of London

ſ s

mul:User:DeirdreAnne

title: User:DeirdreAnne/Sandbox


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/180

 explanation offered of a highly complex phenomenon. It was never disputed, and has scarcely been corrected. Bradley found the 'constant' of aberration to be 20-25" (reducing it, however, in 1748 to 20"). Struve fixed it at 20.445". Bradley concluded, from the amount of aberration, the velocity of light to be such as to bring it from the sun to the earth in 8m 13s, although Roemer had, from actual observation, estimated the interval at llm . The best recent determination (Glasenapp's) of the 'light equation' is 8m 21s . Bradley's demonstration of his rules for aberration remained unpublished till 1832 (Works, p. 287). He observed only the effects in declination ; but his theory was verified as regards right ascension also, by Eustachio Manfredi at Bologna in 1729. The subject was fully investigated by Clairaut in 1737 (Mém. de l'Ac. 1737, p. 205). An important secondary inference from the Wanstead observations was that of the vast distances of even the brighter stars. Bradley stated decisively that the parallax neither of γ Draconis nor of η Ursæ Majoris reached 1", and believed that he should have detected half that quantity (''Phil. Trans.'' xxxv. 660. Double parallaxes are there spoken of). This well-grounded assurance shows an extraordinary advance in exactness of observation.

Bradley succeeded Whiteside as lecturer on experimental philosophy at Oxford in 1729, and resigned the post in 1760, after the close of his seventy-ninth course. There was no endowment, Lord Crewe's benefaction of 30l. per annum becoming payable only in 1749 ; but fees of three guineas a course, with an average attendance of fifty-seven, produced emoluments sufficient for his wants. His lectures were delivered in the Ashmolean Museum, of which he vainly sought the keepership in 1731. In 1732 he took a share in a trial at sea of Hadley's sextants, and wrote a letter warmly commendatory of the invention (Works, p. 505). His removal to Oxford occurred in May of the same year, when he occupied a house in New College Lane attached to his professorship. His aunt, Mrs. Pound, accompanied him, with two of her nephews, and lived with him there five years. He transported thither most of his instruments, but left Graham's sector undisturbed. An important investigation was in progress by its means, for the purposes of which he made during the next fifteen years periodical visits to Wanstead.

It is certain that Halley desired to have Bradley for his successor, and it is even said that he offered to resign in his favour. But death anticipated his project, 14 Jan. 1742. Through the urgent representations of George, earl of Macclesfield, who quoted to Lord-chancellor Hardwicke Newton's dictum that he was 'the best astronomer in Europe,' Bradley was appointed astronomer-royal 3 Feb. 1742. The honour of a degree of D.D. was conferred upon him by diploma at Oxford 22 Feb., and in June he went to live at Greenwich. His first care was to remedy, so far as possible, the miserable state of the instruments, and to procure an assistant in the person of John Bradley, son of his eldest brother, who, at a stipend of 26l., diligently carried out his instructions during fourteen years, and was replaced successively by Mason and Green.

With untiring and well-directed zeal Bradley laboured at the duties of his new office. He took his first transit at Greenwich 25 July 1742, and by the end of the year 1500 had been entered. The work done in 1743 was enormous. The records of observations with the transit instrument fill 177, with the quadrant 148 folio pages. On 8 Aug. 255 determinations of the former, 181 of the latter kind were made. His efforts towards a higher degree of accuracy were unceasing and successful ; yet he never possessed an achromatic telescope. He recognised it as the first duty of an astronomer to make himself acquainted with the peculiar defects of his instruments, and was indefatigable in testing and improving them. By the addition of a finer micrometer screw, 18 July 1745, he succeeded in measuring intervals of half a second with the eight-foot quadrant erected by Graham for Halley, but was deterred from attempting further refinements by discovering it a year later to be sensibly eccentric. At various times between 1743 and 1749 he made experiments on the length of the seconds pendulum, giving the most accurate result previous to Kater's in 1818. The great comet of 1743 was first seen at Greenwich 26 Dec., and was observed there until 17 Feb. 1744. Bradley roughly computed its trajectory, but went no further, it is conjectured, out of kindness towards young Betts, who had the ambition to try his hand on it. He also observed the first comet of 1748, and calculated that of 1707. His observations of Halley's comet in 1759 have for the most part perished. The time was now ripe for the publication of his second great discovery. From the first the Wanstead observations had shown the displacements due to aberration to be attended by a 'residual phenomenon.' A slight progressive inequality was detected, occasioning in stars near the equinoctial colures an excess, in those near the solstitial colures a defect of movement in declination, as compared with that required by a precession of


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/181

 50". The true explanation in a 'nodding' movement of the axis, due to the moon's unequal action upon the equatorial parts of the earth, was more than suspected early in 1732 ; but Bradley did not consider the proof complete until he had tracked each star through an entire revolution of the moon's nodes (18.6 years) back to its mean place (allowance being made for annual precession). In September 1747 he was at length fully satisfied of the correspondence of his hypothesis with facts ; and 14 Feb. 1748 a letter to the Earl of Macclesfield, in which he set forth the upshot of his twenty years' watching and waiting, was read before the Royal Society (Phil. Trans. xlv. 1). The idea of a possible nutation of the earth's axis was not unfamiliar to astronomers ; and Newton had predicted the occurrence of a semi-annual, but scarcely sensible, effect of the kind. A phenomenon such as Bradley detected, however, depending on the position of the lunar orbit, was unthought of until its necessity became evident with the fact of its existence. The complete development of its theory went beyond his mathematical powers, and he invited assistance, promptly rendered by D'Alembert in 1749. Bradley's coefficient of nutation (9") has proved nearly a quarter of a second too small. He might probably have gone even nearer to the truth had he trusted more implicitly to his own observations. His confidence was, however, embarrassed by the proper motions of the stars, the ascertainment of which he, with his usual clear insight into the conditions of exact astronomy, urged upon well-provided observers ; while his sagacious hint that they might be mere optical effects of a real translation of the solar system (Phil. Trans. xlv. 40) gave the first opening for a scientific treatment of that remarkable subject.

As regards nutation, the novelty of his announcement had been somewhat taken off by previous disclosures. On his return from Lapland, Maupertuis consulted him as to the reduction of his observations, when Bradley imparted to him, 27 Oct. 1737, his incipient discovery. Maupertuis was not bound to secrecy, nor did he observe it. He transmitted the information to the Paris Academy (Mem. de l'Ac. 1737, p. 411), while Lalande published in 1745 (ib. 1745, p. 512) the confirmatory results of observations undertaken at Bradley's suggestion.

The discovery of aberration earned for its author, 14 Dec. 1730, exemption on the part of the Royal Society from all future payments ; that of nutation was honoured in 1748 with the Copley medal. His heightened reputation further enabled him to ask and obtain a new instrumental outfit for the Royal Observatory. He took advantage of the annual visitation by members of the Royal Society to represent its absolute necessity ; and a petition drawn up by him and signed by the president and members of council in August 1748 produced an order for 1,000l. under the sign-manual, paid, as a note in Bradley's handwriting informs us, by the treasurer of the navy out of the proceeds of the sale of old stores. The wise expenditure of this paltry sum laid the firm foundation of modern practical astronomy. Bradley was fortunate in the co-operation of John Bird. The eight-foot mural quadrant, for which he paid him 300l., was an instrument not unworthy the eye and hand that were to use it. He had also from him a movable quadrant forty inches in radius, and a transit-instrument of eight-feet focal length. From Short a six-foot reflector was ordered, but not delivered until much later ; and 20l. was paid for a magnetic apparatus, changes in dip and variation having been objects of attention to Bradley as early as 1729. For the Wanstead sector, removed to Greenwich in July 1749, 45l. was allowed to him.

The first employment of Bird's quadrant was in a series of observations, 10 Aug. 1750 to 31 July 1753, for the purpose of determining the latitude of the observatory and the laws of refraction. Simultaneously with Lacaille and Mayer, Bradley introduced the improvement of correcting these for barometrical and thermometrical fluctuations. His formula for computing mean refraction at any altitude closely represented the actual amounts down to within 10 of the horizon (, Hist. Phys. Astr. pp. 329-30). After its publication by Maskelyne in 1763, it was generally adopted in England, and was in use at Greenwich down to 1833.

In 1751 Bradley made observations for determining the distances of the sun and moon in concert with those of Lacaille at the Cape of Good Hope (Mém. de l'Ac. 1752, p. 424). From the combined results for Mars, Delisle deduced a solar parallax of 10.3" (, Misc. Works, p. 481). A series of 230 comparisons with the heavens of Tobias Mayer's 'Lunar Tables,' between December 1755 and February 1756, enabled Bradley to report them to the admiralty as accurate generally within 1'. His hopes of bringing the lunar method of longitudes into actual use were thus revived ; and he undertook, aided by Mason, a laborious correction of the remaining errors founded on 1,220 observations. The particulars of these were inserted in the 'Nautical Almanac' for 1774 but the amended tables, completed from


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aphasia

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aphasia


text:
Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aphasia

Sources:
 * http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_PNG_demo&vol=02&page=EB2A175


text:
Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/149

It would seem to be the case that Christianity under modern conditions must affect marriage indirectly rather than directly. Take for instance the natural relationship itself, apart from legal and ecclesiastical regulation altogether. It is an agreed point that the essence of that natural relationship, that is, ultimately, the moral validity of the marriage covenant, depends upon the free, voluntary, intelligent, deliberate consent of both the parties. Now the meaning of all these adjectives will depend upon the standard of individual self-respect which the parties to the marriage accept.

Christianity ought certainly to have the effect of cleansing and exalting the act of

title: Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/149


text:
Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/150

 consent, on which finally everything depends. Indirectly the Gospel disallows those melancholy unions which are planned by covetous or ambitious parents for their children, into which their children are hurried, often at a scandalously early age, always under conditions which render the notion of free, voluntary, intelligent, deliberate consent absolutely grotesque. These marriages, which profane the sanctuary in the making, pollute society in the unmaking. They are invalid from the first.

Let it be observed that it has only been by slow degrees that Christians have realised the requirements of the Gospel in the matter of personal independence. That the indispensable element in marriage should be, not the consent of parents and guardians, though that is rightly held to be important, but the affectionate choice of the individuals themselves, is a very modern, and by no means even yet an universal, opinion. Assuredly, however, it is the direct consequence of the

title: Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/150


text:
Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/151

 exaltation of individuality which is implied in the religion of the Incarnation. Christianity brought into play the conscience of the individual, and that conscience must determine consent in Christian marriage. While thus marriage has been exalted at the start it is certainly the case that the whole conception of what the marriage union ought to be has been magnified by the Gospel.

When St. Chrysostom calls the Christian's house a "little church" he does but utter an inevitable reflection of Christian husbands and wives. It needed no ecclesiastical prohibitions to make clear the unfitness of marriage between persons who were not, in the deepest concerns and interests of life, at agreement. How could parental responsibility, raised indefinitely by the conviction that Christian children are "holy to the Lord," be happily fulfilled in a divided household, where the convictions underlying duty were not shared by both parents, but by one of them were denied and disregarded? What devout

title: Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/151


text:
Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/152

 Christian could consent " to enter on the marriage covenant with the assurance of that fatal and continuing dissidence? How many sad travesties of marriage would never have taken place, how long a series of lamentable scandals would have been avoided, if this fundamental factor of "consent" had been determined on Christian principles!

Similarly, when we pass from the natural relationship pure and simple, and consider the social relationship, which is the subject of legal regulation, is it not clear that the indirect influence of Christianity ought to be powerful and beneficent. In so far as restrictions of choice are determined by considerations of social well-being they can command the approbation of Christianity, which insists on the duty of self-suppression in the general interest.

The difficult questions which are now being raised by the students of social science will best be answered in an atmosphere of unselfishness. Ought marriage to be permitted be-

title: Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/152


text:
Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/153

 tween persons affected by certain forms of disease? Ought the mentally infirm to be permitted to marry? Ought intermarriage between Europeans and negroes to be encouraged, or even tolerated? These, and many similar questions, are in debate; and for their due answering they demand, not only accurate knowledge of the relevant facts, but also a self-suppressing temper of mind, and a willingness on the part of individuals to sacrifice their natural franchise to the clear interest of the public. There is no rival to Christianity as a power able to create the self-suppressing temper.

Christian marriage ought to be plainly recognisable as the true version of marriage, that which most completely fulfils the natural law of sexual relationship and brings to society the greatest strength and enrichment. The contribution which the Christian Church can make to the advancement of the general life and the guidance of the modern State is mainly

title: Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/153


text:
Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/154

 indirect. What the divine Founder said at the first is nowhere more plainly illustrated. "Ye are the light of the world: ye are the salt of the earth." The Church is set to maintain an ideal in the midst of human society, and gradually, by the winning attractiveness of that ideal, to draw society itself into harmony and pursuit.

For the best of all reasons Christians, from the very beginning of Christianity, have consecrated the marriage union by solemn and significant religious ceremonies. Marriage, asking so much of the individuals, carrying so rich a freight of blessings, and charged with powers of such irretrievable misery, so noble and in its perversions so degraded, gathering into itself all that makes human life gentle, chivalrous, serviceable, sublime, and by a fatal and malignant Nemesis turning all these graces into elements of infamy for those who profane it, cannot be suffered to lie outside the sanctions and aids of Religion.

title: Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/154


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aphanite

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aphanite


text:
Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aphanite

Sources:
 * http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_PNG_demo&vol=02&page=EB2A175


text:
Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/155

 Marriage is either the most effective instrument through which the religion of Christ bears upon mankind for good, or the most pitiable revelation of its spiritual failure. "It concerns all that enter into those golden fetters to see that Christ and His Church be in at every of its periods, and that it be entirely conducted and overruled by religion." For the understanding, and any measure of attainment, of this ideal of marriage, it is evident that Christian discipleship must be pre-supposed in the parties; but that pre-supposition can- not be made in the case of vast numbers of people.

It follows, then, that the Christian ideal is incapable as men are at present of being universally imposed. The State must make its legislation accord with the actual condition of the citizens; and all that the Christian citizen can rightly or reasonably attempt to secure is that the action of the State shall tend towards the gradual but continuous raising of the national standard to the Christian

title: Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/155


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Apenrade

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Apenrade


text:
Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Apenrade

Sources:
 * http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_PNG_demo&vol=02&page=EB2A175


text:
Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/156

 ideal. Christ did not disallow the reasoning which had led the Lawgiver to tolerate a laxity of divorce, which He Himself emphatically condemned. He recognised "the hardness of men's hearts," that is, their crude and rudimentary morals at an early stage of social development, as a valid justification for the Mosaic permission of the Bill of Divorcement.

By a sound analogy we may acquiesce in a lower standard of the general law than Christians for themselves can accept. But our acquiescence in such a lower standard itself constitutes a special reason why we should the more jealously guard Christian principles within the sphere of Christian profession. So only can we fulfil the duty which as Christian citizens we owe to the nation and preserve inviolate our allegiance to Christ.

It is the task of the Church, and it is within the power of the Church, to create and sustain a Christian atmosphere in the national life,

title: Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/156


text:
Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/157

 and to carry into the popular acceptance, by continual affirmation, and far more by general illustration, the principles of the Gospel. The temptation of the Church under modern conditions is to draw apart from the popular life, repudiating its moral laxity, and marking by a deep dividing line of artificial discipline the frontiers of Christianity. It is both unreasonable and unjust to yield to this temptation.

The unreasonableness is sufficiently apparent when it is remembered that the very reason of the Church's existence is the moral regeneration of mankind, and therefore that retirement from the attempt to leaven with Christian principles the general life implies nothing less for the Church than self-stultification. injustice consists in the refusal to allow for the novel situation which now confronts statesmen. The mere scale of modern communities is itself a difficult and dismaying circumstance, which adds immensely to the perplexities of Government, but the wholly The

title: Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/157


text:
Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/158

 unprecedented fact that these vast communities are composed of independent citizens, educated up to the level of understanding and insisting upon their political rights, is even more significant.

It is neither just nor reasonable for the Church to ignore the conditions which, under these circumstances, must determine political action. It is vain to discuss the laws of marriage and divorce apart from the broad probabilities of their practical acceptance.

When the moral control of nations resides in sovereigns, or hierarchies, or in a ruling class however designated, it is possible to impose on the people a code of conduct which may be far superior to their desires, but this possibility no longer exists when the balance of political power has shifted from individuals and classes to the community itself. Then it is quite futile to endeavour to establish a higher standard of morals in the laws than that which is already established in the

title: Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/158


text:
Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/159

 acceptance of the people. Laws, as Burke said, follow manners, not manners laws, in democracies.

Never in the history of mankind has there been such a situation as exists today, a situation in which the dream of the self-forgetting legislator of Israel seems to be taking practical shape and "all the Lord's people are prophets," a situation which does plainly lend itself to fearful departures from righteousness, but none the less implies grander possibilities of social excellence than any hitherto accessible to the race. Everything turns on the standard of sexual purity which shall be accepted by the people; let that be high, and the marriage law will, in the very first place, reveal the fact; let it be degraded, and the earliest victim to its depraving influence will be the covenant of marriage.

The Christian Church, then, is charged with the most solemn and perplexing obligation, viz.: to take frankly into consideration all the

title: Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/159


text:
Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/160

 circumstances which affect the national life and determine the action of the State, and to declare charitably and responsibly what shall be the application of the principles of the Gospel. The Church, in fulfilling this obligation, will not act as in the past, when for a hundred sufficient reasons the whole powers of the society were delegated to its executive. The clergy can no more be accepted as identical with the Church; they must return to their true position as servants and pastors of the congregation, leaders of its worship, guardians of its discipline, charged to fulfil in it the ministry of the Word, having no lordship over it or independence of it. The mind of the Christian society must be expressed through all the organs of expression which the Holy Spirit is inspiring with utterance.

With the Gospel as the basis of fundamental principle, the moral philosopher, the social student, the physician, the physiologist must come to some agreement as to the practical demands of Christian discipleship, and

title: Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/160


text:
Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/161

 these demands, thus certified, all good Christians must insist upon and, as far as lies their power, establish in the laws of the Empire.

The making of rules lies primarily with the specially illuminated, but all members of the Christian society, in all its sections, and under all descriptions, are called to sustain in the world the law of chastity, and to win men by their example to acknowledge the beauty of holiness. Within the Christian society itself the evangelical ideal of marriage ought to be affirmed and enforced, and the sacramental character of the natural relationship vindicated and displayed. Within the sphere of Christian discipleship the sordid and cruel profanations of the marriage covenant ought to be disallowed, and the cynical judgments they provoke ought to be disproved:

From the hallowed enclosure of the Church

title: Page:Christian Marriage.djvu/161


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Deadwood

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Deadwood


text:
Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Deadwood

Sources:
 * http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_PNG_demo&vol=07&page=EB7A904


text:
Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Death

Sources:
 * http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_PNG_demo&vol=07&page=EB7A922

title: Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Death


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Deane, Silas


text:
Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Deane, Silas

Sources:
 * http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_PNG_demo&vol=07&page=EB7A922


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Deane, Richard


text:
Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Deane, Richard

Sources:
 * http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_PNG_demo&vol=07&page=EB7A921


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dean, Forest of


text:
Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dean, Forest of

Sources:
 * http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_PNG_demo&vol=07&page=EB7A921


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dean

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dean


text:
Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dean

Sources:
 * http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_PNG_demo&vol=07&page=EB7A920

title: Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dean


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/358

 Brine joined the baptist ministry at Kettering, and after preaching for some time received a call to Coventry. There he remained till about 1730, when he succeeded Mr. Morton as pastor of the baptist congregation at Curriers' Hall, Cripplegate. He was for a time one of the Wednesday evening lecturers in Great Eastcheap. He also preached in his turn at the 'Lord's Day Evening Lecture' in Devonshire Square. Brine resided for many years in Bridgewater Square, but during his last illness he took lodgings at Kingsland, where he died, on 24 Feb. 1765, in the sixty-third year of his age. He left positive orders that no funeral sermon should be preached for him. His intimate friend, Dr. Gill, however, preached a sermon upon the occasion to his own people, which was afterwards published, but contains no express reference to Brine. Brine was generally reputed a high Calvinist and a supralapsarian. He was called by many persons an antinomian, though his life was exemplary. He was buried in Bunhill Fields. His publications are numerous, and now scarce. In 1792 a pamphlet was published entitled 'The Moral Law the Rule of Moral Conduct to Believers, considered and enforced by arguments extracted from the judicious Mr. Brine's "Certain Efficacy of the Death of Christ."'

A complete catalogue of Brine's separate publications is given by Walter Wilson. The following are his chief works:
 * 1) 'The Christian Religion not destitute of Arguments, &c. … in answer to "Christianity not founded on Argument,"' 1743.
 * 2) 'The Certain Efficacy of the Death of Christ asserted' (a book at one time greatly in demand), 1743.
 * 3) 'A Vindication of Natural and Revealed Religion, in answer to Mr. James Foster,' 1746.
 * 4) 'A Treatise on various subjects: controversial tracts against Bragge, Johnson, Tindal, Jackson, Eltringham, and others' (in 2 vols.), 1750, 1756, 1766, which was extremely popular. It was edited by James Upton in 1813, with some of Brine's sermons added, and a life of the author prefixed (from Walter Wilson).
 * 5) 'Discourses at a Monthly Exercise of Prayer, at Wednesday and Lord's Day Evening Lectures, and Miscellaneous Discourses' (2 vols.); and
 * 6) 'Funeral and Ordination Sermons and Choice Experience of Mrs. Anne Brine, with Dr. Gill's Sermon at her Funeral,' 1750. Collected together, his pamphlets fill eight volumes octavo.

 BRINKELOW, HENRY (d. 1546), satirist, son of Robert Brinkelow, a farmer of Kintbury, Berkshire, began life as a Franciscan, or Grey Friar, but left the order, married, and became a citizen and mercer of London. He adopted the opinions of the reforming party, and wrote satires on social and religious subjects under the pseudonym of Roderigo Mors. He says that he was banished from England through the influence of the bishops. By his will, dated 1546, the year of his death, and proved by his widow Margery, he left 5l. 'to the godly learned men who labour in the vineyard of the Lord, and fight against Anti-Christ.' This will shows that he was a man of substance. He left a son named John. His works are: Besides these, Mr. Cowper attributes to Brinkelow:  'A Supplycacion to our moste Soueraigne Lord Kynge Henry the Eyght,' 1544; and  'A Supplycation of the Poore Commons; 'large extracts from the 'Supplication of the Commons' are given in Strype's 'Memorials,' vol. i. Both these have been edited by Mr. Cowper for the Early English Text Society (1871) in one volume, with Fish's 'Supplication for the Beggars' edited by Mr. Furnivall. Bale, who attributes the 'Complaynt' and the 'Lamentacion,' but not the two 'Supplications,' to Brinkelow, says that he also wrote an 'Expostulation addressed to the Clergy,' which now appears to be lost.
 * 1) 'The Complaynt of Roderyck Mors, sometyme a gray fryre, unto the parlament house of Ingland his natural cuntry. Mighell boys, Geneve in Savoye' (1545?); another edition, 'M. boys, Geneve' (1550); a third 'Per Franciscum de Turona' (Turin). These are in the library of the British Museum. Another edition with slight variations is in the Guildhall Library, London. The 'Complaynt' has been published by the Early English Text Society under the editorship of Mr. J. Meadows Cowper, 1874. It deals with wrongs done the people by enclosures, with the advance in rents, and with legal oppression; it recommends the confiscation of the property of bishops and deans, of chantries and the like, and, after allowing one-tenth to the crown, points out various social objects to which the remainder should be devoted. The 23rd chapter, headed 'A lamentacyon for that the body and tayle of the pope is not banished with his name,' was reprinted in 1641 as a separate broadside with the title 'The true Coppy of the Complaint of Roderyck Mors . . . unto the Parliament House of England.'
 * 2) 'The Lamentacion of a Christian against the Citie of London made by Roderigo Mors … Prynted at Jericho in the land of Promes by Thome Trauth' (1542); another edition, 'Nurembergh, 1545; 'another, in the Lambeth Library (no place), 1548; also edited for the Early English Text Society by Mr. J. M. Cowper, along with the 'Complaynt.'


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


text:
Page:The new British province of South Australia.djvu/23

4 little. The subject has been treated at great length in two volumes recently published, under the title of  'England and America.'  To that work we must refer the reader who is desirous to ascertain the objects of an old state in planting or extending colonies, the  errors hitherto committed by colonizing governments, and the best means of rendering colonization highly advantageous to a country situated like England.

These are questions which interest all classes at home. But in the discussion of these questions, the writer arrives at a conclusion which deeply concerns those whom we now address; viz., persons who may contemplate settling in the new colony of South Australia. The conclusion is, that, whatever the objects of an old state in promoting colonization, the attainment of those objects depends upon attention to details in the plantation of colonies.

This point may properly be noticed more at length.

Sir Joseph Banks, wishing to ornament a bare piece of ground in front of his house near Hounslow, transplanted into it some full-grown trees. Those trees were torn from the beds in which they had grown to maturity. In order to save trouble in moving them, all their smaller roots and branches were cut off: the trunks, thus mutilated, were stuck into the ground; and there, wanting the nourishment which they had before received through innumerable leaves and fibres, they soon died and rotted. A way,


text:
Page:The new British province of South Australia.djvu/24

Rh however, has lately been discovered of transplanting full-grown trees so that they shall flourish as if they had not been removed. The art, for a knowledge of which we are indebted to Sir Henry Steuart, consists in removing the whole of the tree uninjured; the stem, all the limbs, every branch and twig, every root and fibre; and in placing the several parts of this whole in the same relative situation as they occupied before; so that each part shall continue to perform its proper office, the trunk to be nourished by its proper number of mouths above and below; and a due proportion or balance be preserved between the weight of the branches and the strength of the roots, between the action of the roots as well as branches on opposite sides, between the functions of each part and the functions of all the other parts, respectively and together. The work of colonizing a desert bears a curious resemblance to that of transplanting full-grown trees. In neither case is it the ultimate object merely to remove; in both cases it is to establish; and as, in the former case, the immediate object is to remove, not a mere trunk, but an entire tree, so, in the latter case, the immediate object is to remove, not people merely, but society. In both cases equally, success depends upon attention to details. The planters of modern colonies have generally gone to work without much attention to details; as if society might be established in a desert without


text: Portal talk:Mali

title: Portal talk:Mali


text:
Page:The new British province of South Australia.djvu/25

 regard to the numerous and minute circumstances on which society depends. Many a modern colony has perished through the inattention of its founders to little matters which, it was supposed, would take care of themselves. Of those modern colonies which have not perished, many suffered in the beginning the greatest privations and hardships; while, in the least unfavourable cases, it has been as if a full-grown oak, carelessly removed and soon dead, had dropped acorns to become in time full-grown trees. But in the present case, the greatest attention will be paid to details. The present measure of colonization may be likened to the careful removal of full-grown trees from a spot in which they were injured by want of room, to one where they should have ample space to expand and flourish. The details of the measure form the subject of this explanation.

In order to render so brief an explanation as clear as possible, the subject may be divided into several parts, all of which, however, it will be seen presently, are closely related with each other. The whole measure consists of three parts: first, precautions for the removal, not of people merely, but of society; that is, of all the different classes of people who, by means of combining their powers and dividing their employments, obtain every advantage that a society enjoys over savage life: secondly, precautions for preventing that social colony from degenerating into an unsocial


text:
Portal talk:Mexico

Mexico related topics

 * The following table is to be used by editors to track books' status relating to the Mexico portal.
 * Additional books are to be placed in alphabetic order of the title in the table.
 * If the book is transcluded from Wikimedia commons, it is important that a category is created on the commons based on the book name and the category ends with the word in brackets (book) or (books). The category is intended to indicate the content and is to be used as the container to organize and store images related to the book.
 * Additional commons categories assigned to the book are:
 * Books about Mexico
 * Djvu files in English
 * History of Mexico

title: Portal talk:Mexico


text: Portal talk:Monaco

title: Portal talk:Monaco


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/360

 His merits were recognised by ecclesiastical promotion. In 1608 he was collated to the prebend of Kilgoghlin and to the rectory of Derrybrusk; in 1808 he became archdeacon of Clogher, and on 28 Sept. 1826 bishop of Cloyne. The satisfaction of George IV with his reception at Trinity College, Dublin, is said to have been not unconnected with his final elevation. Thenceforth his episcopal duties engrossed all his attention, and the scientific activity, by which he had raised the little observatory at Dunsink to a position of first-rate importance, was brought to a close. After some years of failing health he died at his brother's house in Leeson Street, Dublin, on 14 Sept 1835, aged 72, and was buried in the chapel of Trinity College. A marble tablet erected to his memory in the cathedral of his diocese understates his age by three years. In character he was benevolent and disinterested.

He wrote (besides thirty-five contributions to learned collections, many of them separately reprinted) 'Elements of Astronomy,' Still used as a text-book in Dublin University, The work originated in his lectures to undergraduates, 1799-1808, which, at the request of the board, were published in the latter year, and again, with three additional chapters and an appendix, in 1813. Since then it has run through numerous editions, and obtained in 1671 renewed vitality in a careful recast by Drs. Stubbs and Brünnow. Brinkley's essay on the 'Mean Motion of the Lunar Perigee,' read before the Royal Irish Academy on 21 April 1817, obtained the Conyngham medal. He was one of the first to encourage the rising genius of Sir William Hamilton, his successor in the Andres chair of astronomy, and several of his letters are printed in the 'Life of Hamilton' by Graves (1882), i. 239-40, 297, 324. He was a botanist as well as an astronomer.

BRINKNELL or BRYNKNELL, THOMAS (d. 1539?), professor at Oxford, was educated at Lincoln College, and was appointed head-master of the school attached to Magdalen College, where he 'exercised an admirable way of teaching.' He afterwards studied for a time at University College, and became intimate with Wolsey. He proceeded B.D. in 1501, and D.D. on 13 March 1507-8, 'at which time,' says Wood 'the professor of div. or commissary did highly commend him for his learning.' On 7 Jan. 1510-11 he was collated to a prebend in Lincoln Cathedral, and on the same date was made master of the hospital of St. John at Banbury. In 1521 he was nominated professor of divinity on Cardinal Wolsey's new foundation. He apparently died in 1539 (, Fasti, ii. 183). He was the author of a treatise against Luther, which does not seem to have been printed. According to Wood it was 'a learned piece,' and 'commended for a good book.' Wolsey recommended Brinknell to Henry VIII as 'one of those most fit persons in the university to encounter Mart. Luther.'

BRINSLEY, JOHN (fl. 1663), the elder, puritan divine and educational writer, was educated at Christ's College, Cambridge, where he graduated B.A. in 1584 and M.A. in 1588. He became a 'minister of the Word,' and had the care of the public school at Ashby-de-la-Zouch in Leicestershire. The famous astrologer, William Lilly, was one of his pupils, as he himself informs us in his curious autobiography. 'Upon Trinity Sunday 1613,' he says, 'my father had me to Ashby-de-la-Zouch to be instructed by one Mr. John Brinsley; one in those times of great abilities for instruction of youth in the Latin and Greek tongues; he was very severe in his life and conversation, and did breed up many scholars for the universities. In religion he was a strict puritan, not conformable wholly to the ceremonies of the church of England' (Hist, of his Life and Times (1774), 5). Again he says: 'In the eighteenth year of my age [i.e. in 1619 or 1620] my master Brinsley was enforced from keeping school, being persecuted by the bishop's officers; he came to London, and then lectured in London, where he afterwards died' (ib. 8). He married a sister of Dr. Joseph Hall, bishop of Norwich. His works are:  'Ludus Literarius: or, the Grammar Schoole; shewing how to proceede from the first entrance into learning to the highest perfection required in the Grammar Schooles,' London, 1612 and 1627, 4to.  'The true Watch and Rule of Life,' 7th ed. 2 parts, London, 1615, 8vo, 8th ed. 1619; third part out of Ezekiel ix., London, 1622, 4to; fourth part, 'to the plain-hearted seduced by popery,' London, 1624, 8vo.  'Pueriles Confabulatiunculæ: or Childrens Dialogues, little conferences, or talkings together, or Dialogues fit for children,' London, 1617.  'Cato (concerning the precepts of common life) translated


text: Portal talk:Mongolia

title: Portal talk:Mongolia


text: Portal talk:Montenegro

title: Portal talk:Montenegro


text: Portal talk:Morocco

title: Portal talk:Morocco


text: Portal talk:Myanmar

title: Portal talk:Myanmar


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/361

 ,' London, 1622, 8vo.  'A Consolation for our Grammar Schooles; or a faithfull incouragement for laying of a sure foundation of all good learninge in our Schooles,' London, 1622, 4to.  'The Posing of the Parts: or, a most plaine and easie way of examining the accidence and grammar by questions and answers,' London, 1630, 4to; 10th ed. London, 1647, 4to.  'The first Booke of Tullies Offices, translated grammatically: and also according to the propriety of our English tongue,' London, 1631, 8vo.  'Stanbrigii Embrion relimatum, seu Vocabularium metricum olim à Johanne Stanbrigio digestum, nunc verò locupletatum, defæcatum, legitimo nec non rotundo plerumque carmine exultans, & in majorem Pueritiæ balbutientis usum undequaque accommodatum,' London, 1647, 4to.  'Corderius Dialogues, translated grammatically,' London, 1653. In the dedication to William, lord Cavendish, he speaks of his lordship's 'favourable approbation of my School-endeavours, together with your honourable bountie, for the incouraging of me, to the accomplishment of my promise for my Grammaticall translations.'  'Virgil's Eclogues, with his book of the Ordering of Bees, translated grammatically,' 1663, 4to.

 BRINSLEY, JOHN (1600–1665), the younger, puritan divine, was born at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Leicestershire, in 1600 being son of the elder [q. v.], master of the public school there, and his wife, who was a sister of Dr. Joseph Hall, afterwards bishop of Norwich. Having received the rudiments of education from his father, he was admitted of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, at the age of thirteen years and a half. He attended his uncle, Dr. Hall, then dean of Worcester, to the synod of Dort (1618-19), as his amanuensis; and on his return to Cambridge he was elected to a scholarship in his college, and took his degrees (B.A. 1619, M.A. 1623). After being ordained he preached first at Preston, near Chelmsford. In 1625 he was appointed by the corporation of Great Yarmouth their minister; but the dean and chapter of Norwich, claiming the right of nomination, disputed the appointment, and he was summoned before the high court of commission at Lambeth, and was at mid-summer 1627 dismissed from his ministerial function in Yarmouth church, by a decree in chancery, given upon a certificate made by Archbishop Laud. He continued, however, to preach in the town, in what was then the Dutch church, was subsequently the theatre, and is now commonly called the town house. The corporation meanwhile persevered in their struggle with the bishop and the court in his behalf, till in 1632 the king in council forbade his officiating at Yarmouth altogether, and even committed to prison four individuals—among them the well-known regicide, Miles Corbet, then recorder of the town—for abetting him. Brinsley after this exercised his pastoral duties in the half hundred of Lothingland in 1642, and, through the interest of Sir John Wentworth of Somerleyton Hall, was appointed to the cure of the parish of Somerleyton. Two years subsequently he was again chosen one of the town preachers at Yarmouth, and it is said that he occupied the chancel of the church with the presbyterians, while Bridge with the congregationalists was in possession of the north aisle, and the south aisle, with the nave, was left to the regular minister. Service in all these was performed simultaneously, the corporation having divided the building for the purpose on the death of the king, at an expense of 900l.

At the Restoration he was ejected for refusing the terms of conformity. He was inflexible on the points which divided so many clergymen from the established church, and it is stated that he refused considerable preferment which was offered to induce him to remain in her communion. His death occurred on 22 Jan. 1664-5, and he was buried in St. Nicholas's Church, Yarmouth, with several others of the family. He had a son Robert who was educated at Emmanuel College, Cambridge (M.A. 1660), but was ejected from the university, and studied medicine at Leyden, where he took the degree of M.D. He afterwards practised his profession at Yarmouth, where he was elected co-chamberlain with Robert Bernard in 1681, and in 1692 was appointed water bailiff.

Brinsley published many treatises and sermons, including:  'The Healing of Israels breaches,' London, 1642, 4to.  'Church Reformation tenderly handled in four sermons,' London, 1643, 4to.  'The doctrine and practice of Pædo-baptisme asserted and vindicated,' London, 1645, 4to.  'Stand Still; or, a Bridle for the Times,' London, 1647 and 1652, 4to.
 'Two Treatises: the One handling the Doctrine of Christ's Mediatorship. The other of Mystical Implantation,' 2 parts, London, 1651-2, 8vo.
 'The Mystical Brasen Serpent, with the Magnetical Vertue thereof; or, Christ exalted


text: Portal talk:Nepal

title: Portal talk:Nepal


text: Portal talk:Nigeria

title: Portal talk:Nigeria


text: Portal talk:Norway

title: Portal talk:Norway


text:
Page:History of West Australia.djvu/552

 perfect and most extensive machinery in the world is now erected at this place.

The success which attended the flotation of this company did not cause Mr. Vanzetti to rest on his laurels, for, on turning his attention to other fields, he saw an opportunity of launching out on a scale of far greater magnitude. Not far from Newcastle, on the Avon River, there is a splendid site for the erection of an enormous battery, fed by an even larger permanent supply of water than at Seabrook. True, it is many miles from the field, but with that energy which has marked Mr. Vanzetti's career, he at once set to work to surmount all difficulties. He made (1896) the bold proposal of constructing a line to connect the works with the northern belt of mines (which he maintains are the richest on the fields), beginning at Mount Jackson and ending at Mount Margaret, for the time being at least. The magnitude of this scheme will be appreciated when it is realised that it involves the construction of a railway 500 miles in length, at an estimated cost of £2,000,000. The capital which this intrepid financier has at his command is, perhaps, greater than that of almost any individual in Western Australia, he being the representative of several of the largest mining corporations, and in touch with the most influential business men of the day. All that is required is the consent of the Government for the work to be undertaken. This rail, or ore tramway, will, it is pointed out, in no way interfere with the Government railways, but will merely act as a feeder for the works, and aid the development of fields which would otherwise remain untouched.

Few men would have the courage to propose such a scheme, and fewer still could find the enormous capital required to put it into execution. Mr. Vanzetti is, however, a man who impresses one with the idea that whatever he earnestly undertakes is bound to succeed, if once the prejudice against private enterprise can be overcome with regard to Government concessions.

Unlike many scientific men, he strikes one as being thoroughly practical, and combines with keen business tact that charm of manner and courtesy characteristic of a widely travelled and well-read Italian gentleman.

THOMAS WALL HARDWICK.

OHN Bull and John Barleycorn are inseparable friends, the ale and roast beef of England being held in national repute from time immemorial. The Britisher is the greatest beer-drinker in the world; for the thin and insipid lager of Germany is only a mockery of the generous full-flavoured brew of Bass, Guinness, or the competitors who produce liquor quite as good as that of those old-established houses. To judge from the ascendancy of England it would appear to be possible to trace some affinity between malt and muscle, in spite of the jeremiads of the total abstinence party, so long as the brewer is a master of his art and plays no tricks by putting a chemical infusion into his vat. But after all it is not easy to cheat the critical palate of the public, which among the lieges of Her Majesty may be said to have an inherited, rather than an acquired, acumen in discerning and doing honour to the scientific expert who lives to pleasingly assuage the thirst of his fellow men. One is almost as much to be pitied if he cannot get the favourable award of the public as the slave of the Eastern potentate whose head was taken off if he failed to amuse his master; for a second-rate brewer is not to be endured, while a popular one grows rich and lives in the lap of luxury. Of this the life of Mr. T. W. Hardwick affords striking proof.

Thomas Wall Hardwick is a native of Somersetshire, where his family has held the ancestral property of "Barrowcourt" for more than 300 years. It was in the picturesque farmhouse on this estate that the subject of our notice first saw the light in 1834. After his schooling was over he followed agricultural pursuits until he was twenty-eight years of age, when he went into the great house of Messrs. Flower and Son, Stratford-on-Avon, to learn the brewing business, and was the founder of the Ashton Gate Brewing Company, which is now regarded as one of the leading firms in the trade. Mr. Hardwick was manager of the Ashton Gate Company for twenty years, during which he built up its fortunes on a strong foundation. It was in 1885 that he was induced to accept an appointment in the Castlemaine Brewery in Victoria, a position which he resigned in order to control the establishments of Messrs. Lindsay and Co., at Bourke and Orange, New South Wales. His fame preceded him to Western Australia, where the Swan Brewery was getting into low water for want of more skilful direction than was at that time available in this colony, and judging Mr. Hardwick by the highly satisfactory results which he had attained in connection with all his previous ventures, the directors were willing to make

title: Page:History of West Australia.djvu/552