text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Williams, Charles James Watkin


text:
Popular Tales from the Norse/Why the Bear is Stumpy-Tailed

 Folkeeventyr (1852)/17

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


text: Popular Tales from the Norse/Not a Pin to Choose between Them


text: Popular Tales from the Norse/One's own Children are always Prettiest


text:
Pensacola Telegraph Company v. Western Union Telegraph Company/Dissent Field

MR. JUSTICE FIELD and MR. JUSTICE HUNT dissented.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD.

I am compelled to dissent from the judgment of the court in this case, and from the reasons upon which it is founded; and I will state with as much brevity as possible the grounds of my dissent.

The bill was filed to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant from erecting, using, or maintaining a telegraph line in the county of Escambia, Florida, on the ground that, by a statute of the State passed in December, 1866, the complainant had acquired the exclusive right to erect and use lines of telegraph in that county for the period of twenty years. The court below denied the injunction and dismissed the bill, upon the ground that the statute was in conflict with the act of Congress of July 24, 1866, entitled 'An Act to aid in the construction of telegraph lines, and to secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes.' 14 Stat. 221.

The statute of Florida incorporated the Pensacola Telegraph Company, which had been organized in December of the previous year, and in terms declared that it should enjoy 'the sole and exclusive privilege and right of establishing and maintaining lines of electric telegraph in the counties of Escambia and Santa Rosa, either from different points within said counties, or connecting with lines coming into said counties, or either of them, from other points in this or any other State.'

Soon after its organization, and in 1866, the company erected a line of telegraph from the city of Pensacola, through the county of Escambia, to the southern boundary of Alabama, a distance of forty-seven miles, which has since been open and in continuous operation. It was located, by permission of the Alabama and Florida Railroad Company, along its line of railway. After the charter was obtained, the line was substantially rebuilt, and two other lines in the county were erected by the company.

In February, 1873, the legislature of Florida passed an act granting to the Pensacola and Louisville Railrod Company, which had become the assignee of the Alabama and Florida Railroad Company, the right to construct and operate telegraph lines upon its right of way from the Bay of Pensacola to the junction of its road with the Mobile and Montgomery Railroad, and to connect the same with the lines of other companies. By an amendatory act passed in the following year (February, 1874), the railroad company was authorized to construct and operate the lines, not only along its road as then located, but as it might be thereafter located, and along connecting roads in the county, to the boundary of Alabama, and to connect and consolidate them with other telegraph companies, and to sell and assign the property appertaining to them, and the rights, privileges, and franchises conferred by the act; and it empowered the assignee, in such case, to construct and operate the lines, and to enjoy these rights, privileges, and franchises.

Under this amendatory act, and soon after its passage, the railroad company assigned the rights, privileges, and franchises thus acquired to the Western Union Telegraph Company, the defendant herein, a corporation created under the laws of the State of New York; which at once proceeded to erect a line from the city of Pensacola to the southern boundary of Alabama, along the identical railway on which the complainant's line was erected in 1866, and has been located ever since, with the avowed intention of using it to transmit for compensation messages for the public in the county and State. By the erection and operation of this line, the complainant alleges that its property would become valueless, and that it would lose the benefits of the franchises conferred by its charter.

There can be no serious question that the State of Florida possessed the absolute right to confer upon a corporation created by it the exclusive privilege for a limited period to construct and operate a telegraph line within its borders. Its Constitution, in existence at the time, empowered the legislature to grant exclusive privileges and franchises to private corporations for a period not exceeding twenty years. The exclusiveness of a privilege often constitutes the only inducement for undertakings holding out little prospect of immediate returns. The uncertainty of the results of an enterprise will often deter capitalists, naturally cautions and distrustful, from making an investment, without some assurance that, in case the business become profitable, they shall not encounter the danger of its destruction or diminution by competition. It has, therefore, been a common practice in all the States to encourage enterprises having for their object the promotion of the public good, such as the construction of bridges, turnpikes, railroads, and canals, by granting for limited periods exclusive privileges in connection with them. Such grants, so far from being deemed encroachments upon any rights or powers of the United States, are held to constitute contracts, and to be within the protecting clause of the Constitution prohibiting any impairing of their obligation.

The grant to the complainant was invaded by the subsequent grant to the Pensacola and Louisville Railroad Company. If the first grant was valid, the second was void, according to all the decisions of this court, upon the power of a State to impair its grant, since the Dartmouth College Case. The court below did not hold otherwise, and I do not understand that a different view is taken here; but it decided, and this court sustains the decision, that the statute making the first grant was void, by reason of its conflict with the act of Congress of July 24, 1866.

With all deference to my associates, I cannot see that the act of Congress has any thing to do with the case before us. In my judgment, it has reference only to telegraph lines over and along military and post roads on the public domain of the United States. The title of the act expresses its purpose; namely, 'To aid in the construction of telegraph lines, and to secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes.' The aid conferred was the grant of a right of way over the public domain; the act does not propose to give aid in any other way. Its language is, that any telegraph company organized under the laws of a State 'shall have the right to construct, maintain, and operate lines of telegraph through and over any portion of the public domain, over and along any of the military and post roads which have been or may hereafter be declared such by act of Congress, and over and across the navigable streams or waters of the United States.' The portion of the public domain which may be thus used is designated by reference to the military and post roads upon it. Were there any doubt that this is the correct construction of the act, the provision which follows in the same section would seem to remove it; namely, that any of the said companies shall 'have the right to take and use from such public lands the necessary stone, timber, and other materials for its posts, piers, stations, and other needful uses in the construction, maintenance, and operation of said lines of telegraph, and may pre-empt and use such portion of the unoccupied public lands, subject to pre-emption, through which its said lines of telegraph may be located, as may be necessary for its stations, not exceeding forty acres for each station, but such sections shall not be within fifteen miles of each other.' In the face of this language, the Italics of which are mine, there ought not to be a difference of opinion as to the object of the act, or as to its construction. The conclusion reached by the majority of the court not only overlooks this language, but mplies that Congress intended to give aid to the telegraph companies of the country, those existing or thereafter to be created,-not merely by allowing them to construct their lines over and along post-roads upon the public lands, but also over and along such roads within the States which are not on the public lands, where, heretofore, it has not been supposed that it could rightfully exercise any power.

The only military roads belonging to the United States within the States are in the military reservations; and to them the act obviously does not apply. And there are no post-roads belonging to the United States within the States. The roads upon which the mails are carried by parties, under contract with the government, belong either to the States, or to individuals, or to corporations, and are declared post-roads only to protect the carriers from being interfered with, and the mails from being delayed in their transportation, and the postal service from frauds. The government has no other control over them. It has no proprietary interest in them or along them to bestow upon any one. It cannot use them, without paying the tolls chargeable to individuals for similar uses; it cannot prevent the State from changing or discontinuing them at its pleasure; and it can acquire no ownership or property interest in them, except in the way in which it may acquire any other property in the States,-namely, by purchase, or by appropriation upon making just compensation. Dickey v. Turnpike Road Co., 7 Dana (Ky.), 113.

The public streets in some of our cities are post-roads, under the declaration of Congress (Rev. Stat., sect. 3964); and it would be a strange thing it telegraph lines could be erected by a foreign corporation along such streets without the consent of the municipal and State authorities, and, of course, without power on their part to regulate its charges or control its management. Yet the doctrine asserted by the majority of the court goes to this length: that, if the owners of the property along the streets consent to the erection of such lines by a foreign corporation, the municipality and the State are powerless to prevent it, although the exclusive right to erect them may have been granted by the State to a corporation of its own creation.

If by making a contract with a party to carry the mails over a particular road in a State, which thus becomes by act of Congress for that purpose a post-road, Congress acquires such rights with respect to the road that it can authorize corporations of other States to construct along and over it a line of telegraph, why may it not authorize them to construct along the road a railway, or a turnpike, or a canal, or any other work which may be used for the promotion of commerce? If the authority exist in the one case, I cannot see why it does not equally exist in the other. And if Congress can authorize the corporations of one State to construct telegraph lines and railways in another State, it must have the right to authorize them to condemn private property for that purpose. The act under consideration does not, it is true, provide for such condemnation; but if the right exist to authorize the construction of the lines, it cannot be defeated from the inability of the corporations to acquire the necessary property by purchase. The power to grant implies a power to confer all the authority necessary to make the grant effectual. It was for a long time a debated question whether the United States, in order to obtain property required for their own purposes, could exercise the right of eminent domain within a State. It has been decided, only within the past two years, that the government, if such property cannot be obtained by purchase, may appropriate it, upon making just compensation to the owner, Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367; but never has it been suggested that the United States could enable a corporation of one State to condemn property in another State, in order that it might transact its private business there.

We are not called upon to say that Congress may not construct a railroad as a post-road, or erect for postal purposes a telegraph line. It may be that the power to establish postroads is not limited to designating the roads which shall be used as postal routes,-a limitation which has been asserted by eminent jurists and statesmen. If it be admitted that the power embraces also the construction of such roads, it does not follow that Congress can authorize the corporation of one State to construct and operate a railroad or telegraph line in another State for the transaction of private business, or even to exist there, without the permission of the latter State. By reason of its previous grant to the complainant, Florida was incompetent to give such permission to the assignor of the defendant, or to any other company, to construct a telegraph line in the county of Escambia. The act of the State of Feb. 3, 1874, in the face of this grant, can only be held to authorize the construction of telegraph lines by different companies in other counties. If, therefore, the defendant has any rights in that county, they are derived solely from the act of Congress.

A corporation can have no legal existence beyond the limits of the sovereignty which created it. In Bank of Augusta v. Earle (13 Pet. 519), it was said by this court that 'it must dwell in the place of its creation, and cannot migrate to another sovereignty.' And in Paul v. Virginia (8 Wall. 168), we added, that 'the recognition of its existence even by other States, and the enforcement of its contracts made therein, depend purely upon the comity of those States,-a comity which is never extended where the existence of the corporation or the exercise of its powers is prejudicial to their interests or repugnant to their policy. Having no absolute right of recognition in other States, but depending for such recognition and the enforcement of its contracts upon their assent, it follows, as a matter of course, that such assent may be granted, upon such terms and conditions as those States may think proper to impose. They may exclude the foreign corporation entirely, they may restrict its business to particular localities, or they may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with their citizens as in their judgment will best promote the public interest. The whole matter rests in their discretion.' If, therefore, foreign corporations can exist in the State of Florida, and do business there by the authority of Congress, it must be because Congress can create such corporations for local business,-a doctrine to which I cannot assent, and which to my mind is pregnant with evil consequences.

In all that has been said of the importance of the telegraph as a means of intercourse, and of its constant use in commercial transactions, I fully concur. Similar language may be used with regard to railways; indeed, of the two, the railway is much the more important instrument of commerce. But it is difficult to see how from this fact can be deduced the right of Congress to authorize the corporations of one State to enter within the borders of another State and construct railways and telegraph lines in its different counties for the transaction of local business. The grant to the complainant in no way interferes with the power of Congress, if it possess such power, to construct telegraph lines or railways for postal service or for military purposes, or with its power to regulate commerce between the States. The imputation that Florida designed by the grant to obstruct the powers of Congress in these respects is not warranted by any thing in her statute. A like imputation, and with equal justice, might be made against every State in the Union which has authorized the construction of a railway or telegraph line in any one of its counties, with a grant of an exclusive right to operate the road or line for a limited period. It is true the United States, equally with their citizens, may be obliged in such cases to use the road or line; but it has not heretofore been supposed that this fact impaired the right of the State to make the grant. When the general government desires to transact business within a State, it necessarily makes use of the highways and modes of transit provided under the laws of the State, in the absence of those of its own creation.

The position advanced, that if a corporation be in any way engaged in commerce it can enter and do business in another State without the latter's consent, is novel and startling. There is nothing in the opinion in Paul v. Virginia which gives any support to it. The statute of Virginia, which was under consideration in that case, provided that no insurance company not incorporated under its laws should do business within the State, without previously obtaining a license for that purpose; and that it should not receive such license until it had deposited with the treasurer of the State bonds of a specified character to an amount varying from $30,000 to $50,000. No such deposit was required of insurance companies incorporated by the State for carrying on their business within it; and in that case the validity of the discriminating provisions of the statute, between the corporations of the State and those of other States, was assailed. It was contended, among other things, that the statute was in conflict with the power vested in Congress to regulate commerce among the several States; that the power included commerce carried on by corporations as well as that carried on by individuals; and that the issuing of a policy of insurance upon property in one State by a corporation of another State was a transaction of inter-state commerce. The court replied, that it was true that the language of the grant to Congress made no reference to the instrumentalities by which commerce might be carried on; that it was general, and included alike commerce by individuals, partnerships, associations, and corporations; and that, therefore, there was nothing in the fact, that the insurance companies of New York were corporations, which impaired the argument of counsel, but that its defect lay in the character of the business; that issuing a policy of insurance was not a transaction of commerce; that the policies were mere contracts of indemnity against loss by fire, and not articles of commerce in any proper meaning of the term. In other words, the court held that the power of Congress to regulate commerce was not affected by the fact that such commerce was carried on by corporations, but that a contract of insurance made by a corporation of one State upon property in another State was not a transaction of inter-state commerce. It would have been outside of the case for the court to have expressed an opinion as to the power of Congress to authorize a foreign corporation to do business in a State, upon the assumption that issuing a policy of insurance was a commercial transaction. And it is impossible to see any bearing of the views, which were expressed, upon the doctrine advanced here, that a corporation of one State, in any way engaged in commerce, can enter another State and do business there without the latter's consent. Let this doctrine be once established, and the greater part of the trade and commerce of every State will soon be carried on by corporations created without it. The business of the country is to a large extent conducted or controlled by corporations; and it may be, as was said by this court in the case referred to, 'of the highest public interest that the number of corporations in the State should be limited, that they should be required to give publicity to their transactions, to submit their affairs to proper examination, to be subject to forfeiture of their corporate rights in case of mismanagement, and that their officers should be held to a strict accountability for the manner in which the business of the corporations is managed, and be liable to summary removal.' All these guards against corporate abuses the State would be incapable of taking against a corporation of another State operating a railway or a telegraph line within its borders under the permission of Congress, however extortionate its charges or corrupt its management. The corporation might have a tariff of rates and charges prescribed by its charter, which would be beyond the control of the State; and thus, by the authority of Congress a State might be reduced to the condition of having the rates of charges for transportation of persons and freight and messages within its borders regulated by another State. Indeed, it is easy to see that there will remain little of value in the reserved rights of the States, if the doctrine announced in this case be accepted as the law of the land.

The power vested in Congress to regulate commerce 'among the several States' does not authorize any interference with the commerce which is carried on entirely within a State. 'Comprehensive as the word 'among' is,' says Chief Justice Marshall, 'it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one;' and 'the completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered as reserved for the State itself.' Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 194, 195. That commerce embraces the greater part of the business of every State. Every one engaged in the transportation of property or persons, or in sending messages, between different points within the State, not destined to points beyond it, or in the purchase or sale of merchandise within its borders, is engaged in its commerce; and the doctrine that Congress can authorize foreign corporations to enter within its limits and participate in this commerce without the State's consent is utterly subversive of our system of local State government. State control in local matters would thus be impossible.

The late war was carried on at an enormous cost of life and property, that the Union might be preserved; but, unless the independence of the States within their proper spheres be also preserved, the Union is valueless. In our form of government, the one is as essential as the other; and a blow at one strikes both. The general government was formed for national purposes, principally that we might have within ourselves uniformity of commercial regulations, a common currency, one postal system, and that the citizens of the several States might have in each equality of right and privilege; and that in our foreign relations we might present ourselves as one nation. But the protection and enforcement of private rights of both persons and property, and the regulation of domestic affairs, were left chiefly with the States; and, unless they are allowed to remain there, it will be impossible for a country of such vast dimensions as ours-with every variety of soil and climate, creating different pursuits, and conflicting interests in different sections-to be kept together in peace. As long as the general government confines itself to its great but limited sphere, and the States are left to control their domestic affairs and business, there can be no ground for public unrest and disturbance. Disquiet can only arise from the exercise of ungranted powers.

Over no subject is it more important for the interests and welfare of a State that it should have control, than over corporations doing business within its limits. By the decision now rendered, congressional legislation can take this control from the State, and even thrust within its borders corporations of other States in no way responsible to it. It seems to me that, in this instance, the court has departed from long-established doctrines, the enforcement of which is of vital importance to the efficient and harmonious working of our national and State governments.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT.

I dissent, on the ground that the act of Congress was intended only to apply to telegraph lines constructed upon the public domain.


text: Popular Tales from the Norse/The Three Princesses of Whiteland


text: Popular Tales from the Norse/The Lassie and her Godmother


text: Popular Tales from the Norse/The Three Aunts


text:
Davidson v. New Orleans/Concurrence Bradley

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY.

In the conclusion and general tenor of the opinion just read, I concur. But I think it narrows the scope of inquiry as to what is due process of law more than it should do.

It seems to me that private property may be taken by a State without due process of law in other ways than by mere direct enactment, or the want of a judicial proceeding. If a State, by a its laws, should authorize private property to be taken for public use without compensation (except to prevent its falling into the hands of an enemy, or to prevent the spread of a conflagration, or, in virtue of some other imminent necessity, where the property itself is the cause of the public detriment), I think it would be depriving a man of his property without due process of law. The exceptions noted imply that the nature and cause of the taking are proper to be considered. The distress-warrant issued in the case of Murray's Lessee et al. v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co. (18 How. 272) was sustained, because it was in consonance with the usage of the English government and our State governments in collecting balances due from public accountants, and hence was 'due process of law.' But the court in that case expressly holds that 'it is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative, as well as on the executive and judicial, power of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave Congress free to make any process 'due process of law' by its mere will.' p. 276. I think, therefore, we are entitled, under the fourteenth amendment, not only to see that there is some process of law, but 'due process of law,' provided by the State law when a citizen is deprived of his property; and that, in judging what is 'due process of law,' respect must be had to the cause and object of the taking, whether under the taxing power, the power of eminent domain, or the power of assessment for local improvements, or none of these: and if found to be suitable or admissible in the special case, it will be adjudged to be 'due process of law;' but if found to be arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust, it may be declared to be not 'due process of law.' Such an examination may be made without interfering with that large discretion which every legislative power has of making wide modifications in the forms of procedure in each case, according as the laws, habits, customs, and preferences of the people of the particular State may require.


text: Popular Tales from the Norse/The Cock the Cuckoo and the Blackcock


text:
User:Betaclamp

Greetings one and all! It sure is a nice day isn't it? I'll be working on a brief description for here of what a betaclamp actually is; & I've got to do some tidying in ~pedia as well. What else is new, besides Wikia hitting its stride?

Aristotle claimed that " Contemplation is the highest form of Activity." - because there is nothing that was ever physically created by Mankind that did not originate in the contemplative Mind. ~ Betaclamp (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Nova's newest 'Secrets of the Bible', and the statement that "The Israelites are God's chosen People": it appears that the opposite is actually True. The first [historical] reference to Israel occurred on a large (2 meters tall) stone block, 'inscribed' in 1208 B. C. As well, the first pages of The Old Testament appeared at this time, based upon linguistic criteria. The main point is that before this time there were a multitude of 'deities' worshiped, mainly in the form of idols, by ALL peoples. The First Peoples of Israel CREATED, and caused to flourish, the NEW concept of just One GOD. Ergo, it is clear that the people of Israel are - rather that God's chosen people - the first People who chose God. Also, this shows exactly the Origin(s) of both Christianity and Islam.

Now, hold the phone[emes]. Further to the above: There is a slim WikiPedia Article 'Rahotep'. Neither in Books nor Webs can I locate another reference - yet in the movie, color, "Valley of the Kings", 1957 (or '55): Robert Taylor and Eleanor Parker => The entire movie was designed to high-light this: Before 3000 years ago there was The Pharaoh Rahotep who was the first to accept and acknowledge JUST ONE GOD. His tomb was especially designed - first and foremost to hide His innermost sanctum which contained no wall paintings of any of the Egyptian gods - clearly showing that He deigned just One God.

His three outer 'sanctums' were laden with pictures of many of their gods - Ram, Ibis, Raven, etc., painted decoys - because Rahotep feared {correctly} that Egypt would 'forget' his Monotheistic Propositions and revert to the old ways, and that His Legacy would be Lost.

S. V. P. {If you please} the Q'n remains - to what extent is this movie historically accurate? May 21st, 2011.

title: User:Betaclamp


text:
Gold-Washing and Water Company v. Keyes/Dissent Bradley

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, dissenting.

The question intended to be raised in this case is, whether the grants made by the United States of placer mines, as such, involve the right to discharge the refuse earth and gravel produced by working said mines, called 'tailings,' into the neighboring streams, in this case Bear River, inasmuch as the mines cannot be worked except by means of a discharge of the streams of water loaded with such refuse. This question depends upon the construction of the titles given by the United States. When the government determined to sell mining property as such, and placer mines eo nomine, did it, or did it not, intend to confer a right of working them in the only way in which they could be worked? It seems to me that the question is clearly raised by the allegations of the petition in this case; and the claim of the right is clearly made. Whether it can be maintained as against the occupants of inferior lands in the valleys which may be injured thereby is another question, not now before us. I think the parties were entitled to a removal of the cause.


text:
Template talk:Featured

This template interferes with the display of next = in the header. cygnis insignis 07:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we change the template to either of these?

Appears above the header to avoid interference.

Within notes section.

I prefer the second, as it seems like a component of the text inline with our way of managing sister links and portals. - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Featured


text:
Page:History of West Australia.djvu/525

VEN in a hyper-democratic age like ours we are not warranted in stating a proposition in precise mathematical form, thus:—Degree is to pedigree what substance is to straw. For this is a cruel reduction of the second half of the ratio to a blank inane. Suppose we say that degree is an indicator of the strength of mental solutions, and that pedigree serves as a mercurial thermometer for testing the quality of blood solution, then we shall have told the bare truth without compromising ourselves. But when we remember the deep, sententious saying of the great philosopher, Sir William Hamilton, which he so loved that he caused it to be inscribed on the walls of his classroom in the Edinburgh University, "On earth there is nothing great but man; in man there is nothing great but mind," we are forced to put degree on a pedestal, and pedigree in a waxwork.

A scholastic or scientific degree should grant the holder a life-tong lease of knowledge. It implies a high educational standard, and what is usually styled "talent." Few know, other than the fortunate possessors, of the vast extent of knowledge, and the concomitant labour, involved in its acquisition.

Mr. H. P. Woodward was born in Norwich in 1858. His father, Dr. Henry Woodward, is, and has been for many years, keeper of the Geological Department of the British Museum. In this capacity the eminent doctor successfully conducts works of geological research. His name has been quoted as an authority in geological treatises that aspire to the rank of standard texts. Harry's early career was spent within the scholastic walls of the University College, Bow Street, London, which, as a scientific institution, compared favourably with any sister college in Britain. Many eminent men of letters and science figure as alumni and graduates of this University. Her success in rearing distinguished sons is to be ascribed to the efficiency of her professors, the high standard of instruction imparted to her students, and the rigour and severity of her examinations.

The close of the "magistrand" year is a memorable event in the student's life. He bids good-bye, sad and sore at heart, to these hallowed walls. Toga and trencher—the emblems and heralding of studentdom—are now consigned to an everlasting rest on the press shelf. Their duty now is to serve as relics and reminiscences of the past. Mr. Woodward had not, however, said adieu to books and study. As an undergraduate he had specialised in some specific subjects of science. These he now proceeded to study more minutely in the Royal School of Mines in London. He embraced them with an enthusiasm and fervour that made devotion a pleasure and gain.

But somewhat damping to his scientific ardour was the paternal request to enter an office. Its satellites of stools, pens, and sickly clerks bad never any attractions for him. Obedience and not love made him adapt himself to these tiresome surroundings. In a short time dislike drove him away. He could brook it no longer, and left to undertake some artistic work in lithography and engraving. But even this was not destined to be his line of life. He felt more keenly than ever an attachment to science. He again went to the School of Mines fully determined to pursue and master. The subjects of exclusive study comprised chemistry, metallurgy, geology and advanced mining. Success attended perseverance; innate abilities facilitated study. The teacher recognised his capabilities, and offered him the appointment of Assistant Government Geologist of South Australia. Mr. Woodward accepted, and sailed to the new sphere of operations in 1883. He assisted the senior geologist of the colony, Mr. H. Y. L. Brown, for three and a half years. In 1886 he sailed to England to subserve the interests of the colony at the Indian and Colonial Exhibition.

After severing himself from his colonial connection Mr. Woodward engaged in further study in London, with a view to compete in the Indian geological survey examination. For the third time he wrote his name in the School of Mines album, and proceeded to the old haunts at the laboratory. Nothing perhaps is so fascinating as the often prolonged attempts to reach certain results in research. Scientists are quite prepared to spend nights and days in the pursuit of a certain result. While still intent on entering for the competitive examination, he received an offer from the Western Australian Government of the position of Government Geologist, rendered vacant by the death of Mr. Hardman. His appointment dated from December, 1887.

When he landed in Western Australia the Anstey rush near Northam was setting in. Proceeding to the spot soon after his arrival he reported on the fields for the Government. The gold period of the colony's history was commenced, and his duties increased correspondingly with the increase of finds. In quick succession the Von Bibra and Golden Valley rushes took place, necessitating his presence and exhaustive reports. From small beginnings and stray finds discoveries of mines waxed in wealth

title: Page:History of West Australia.djvu/525


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/121

 and its amendment will rise; those opposed will rise. There being two-thirds in favor of the motion, the debate is closed on the motion to commit and its amendment, and the question is on the amendment," etc. While this form is allowable, yet it is better to conform to the regular parliamentary form as given above.

The Object of the previous question is to bring the assembly at once to a vote on the immediately pending question and on such other pending questions as may be specified in the demand. It is the proper motion to use for this purpose, whether the object is to adopt or to kill the proposition on which it is ordered, without further debate or motions to amend. The Effect* of ordering the previous question is to close debate immediately, to prevent the moving of amendments or any other subsidiary motions except to lay on the table, and to bring the assembly at once to a vote on the immediately pending question, and such other pending questions as were specified in the demand, or motion. If the previous question is ordered on more than one question, then its effect extends to those questions and is not exhausted until they are voted on, or they are disposed of as shown below under exhaustion


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/122

 of the previous question. If the previous question is voted down, the discussion continues as if this motion had not been made. The effect of the previous question does not extend beyond the session in which it was adopted. Should any of the questions upon which it was ordered come before the assembly at a future session they are divested of the previous question and are open to debate and amendment. The previous question is Exhausted during the session as follows: (1) When the previous question is unqualified, its effect terminates as soon as the vote is taken on the immediately pending question.

(2) If the previous question is ordered on more than one of the pending questions its effect is not exhausted until all of the questions upon which it has been ordered have been voted on, or else the effect of those that have been voted on has been to commit the main question, or to postpone it definitely or indefinitely.

If, before the exhaustion of the previous question, the questions on which it has been ordered that have not been voted on are laid on the table, the previous question is not exhausted thereby, so that when they are taken from the table during the same session, they are still under the previous question and


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/123

 be debated or amended or have any other subsidiary motion applied to them. Note on the Previous Question.— Much of the confusion heretofore existing in regard to the Previous Question has arisen from the great changes which this motion has undergone. As originally designed, and at present used in the English Parliament, the previous question was not intended to suppress debate, but to suppress the main question, and therefore, in England, it is always moved by the enemies of the measure, who then vote in the negative. It was first used in 1604, and was intended to be applied only to delicate questions; it was put in this form, "Shall the main question be put?" and being negatived, the main question was dismissed for that session. Its form was afterwards changed to this, which is used at present, "Shall the main question be now put?" and if negatived the question was dismissed, at first only until after the ensuing debate was over, but now, for that day. The motion for the previous question could be debated; when once put to vote, whether decided afiirmatively or negatively, it prevented any discussion of the main question, for, if decided affirmatively, the main question was immediately put, and if decided negatively (that is, that the main question be not now put), it was dismissed for the day. Our Congress has gradually changed the English Previous Question into an entirely different motion, so that, while in England, the mover of the previous question votes against it, in this country he votes for it. At first the previous question was debatable; if adopted it cut off all motions except the main question, which was immediately put to vote; and if rejected the main question was dismissed for that day as in England. Congress, in 1805. made it undebatable. In 1840 the rule was changed so as not to cut off amendments but to bring the House to a vote first upon pending amendments, and then upon the main question. In 1848 its effect was changed again so as to bring the House to a vote upon the motion to commit if it had been made, then upon amendments reported by a committee, if any, then upon


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/124

 pending amendments, and finally upon the main question. In 1860 Congress decided that the only effect of the previous question, if the motion to postpone were pending, should be to bring the House to a direct vote on the postponement — thus preventing the previous question from cutting off any pending motion. In 1860 the rule was modified also so as to allow it to be applied if so specified to an amendment or to an amendment of an amendment, without affecting anything else, and so that if the previous question were lost the debate would be resumed. In 1880 the rule was further changed so as to allow it to be applied to single motions, or to a series of motions, the motions to which it is to apply being specified in the demand; and 30 minutes' debate, equally divided between the friends and the enemies of the proposition, was allowed after the previous question had been ordered, if there had been no debate previously. In 1890 the 30 minutes' debate was changed to 40 minutes. The previous question now is simply a motion to close debate and proceed to voting on the immediately pending question and such other pending questions as it has been ordered upon. 30. Limit or Extend Limits of Debate. Motions, or orders, to limit or extend the limits of debate, like the previous question, take precedence of all debatable motions, may be applied to any debatable motion or series of motions, and, if not specified to the contrary, apply only to the immediately pending question. If it is voted to limit the debate, the order applies to all incidental and subsidiary motions and the motion to reconsider, subsequently made, as long as the order is in force. But an order extending the limits of debate does not apply to any motions except the immediately pending one and such others as are


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/125

specified. They are undebatable, and require a two-thirds vote for their adoption. These motions may be amended, but can have no other subsidiary motion applied to them. They yield to privileged [14] and incidental [13] motions, and to the motions to lay on the table and for the previous question. They may be made only when the immediately pending question is debatable. When one of them is pending, another one that does not conflict with it may be moved as an amendment. After one of these motions has been adopted it is in order to move another one of them, provided it does not conflict with the one in force. This motion to limit or extend the limits of debate may be reconsidered even though the order has been partially executed, and if lost it may be renewed after there has been sufficient progress in debate to make it a new question.

After an order is adopted closing debate at a certain hour, or limiting it to a certain time, the motions to postpone and to commit cannot be moved until the vote adopting the order has been reconsidered; but the pending question may be laid on the table, and if it is not taken from the table until after the hour appointed for closing the debate and taking the vote, no debate or motion to amend is allowed, as the chair should immediately put the question. After the adoption of an order limiting the number or length of the speeches, or


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/126

these limits, it is in order to move any of the other subsidiary [12] motions on the pending question. An order modifying the limits of debate on a question is in force only during the session in which it was adopted. If the question in any way goes over to the next session it is divested of this order and is open to debate according to the regular rules. The various Forms of this motion are as follows: (1) To fix the hour for closing debate and putting the question, the form is similar to this: "I move that debate close and the question be put on the resolution at 9 " (2) To limit the length of the debate, the motion may be made thus: "I move that debate on the pending amendment be limited to twenty minutes." (3) To reduce or increase the number and length of speeches, the motion should be made in a form similar to one of these: "I move that debate on the pending resolution and its amendments be limited to one speech of five minutes from each member;" "I move that Mr. A's time be extended ten minutes;" "I move that Messrs. A and B (the leaders on the two sides) be allowed twenty minutes each, to be divided between their two speeches at their pleasure, and that other members be limited to one speech of two minutes each, and that the question be put at 9 "


text:
User talk:Alexander Roumega

I believe that The Earth Plus 5% cannot be placed on Wikisource, as policy is only to allow material that can be adapted and altered. You may wish to comment here.--Longfellow (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Twenty Years in the Himalaya
I've altered the headings of the first sections, showing you how to link back to the main page of the work. you can copy this header in future sections as you add them.

Also, it is not necessary to put copyright information on every section of a work; this need only be stated once on the main page of each work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you! Alexander Roumega (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Speech at Prayer Meeting, Sabarmati Ashram
Hi, This is still under a copyright in USA because of URAA, therefore it can't published in Wikisource before 2026. We can't have any work of Gandhi published after 1927. Yann (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And why Kingsley Hall Speech presents?--Alexander Roumega (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alexander Roumega


text: Author:Henry Goudy

title: Author:Henry Goudy


text: Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918/Vixi Puellis Nuper Idoneus...


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/346

 'Literary Illustrations,' vol. v. There are mezzotint engravings of Gulston and of his wife by James Watson and Richard Earlom after paintings by Hamilton.

[Nichols's Lit. Illustrations, v. 1–60; Gent. Mag. 1786, ii. 622.]  GULSTON, THEODORE (1572–1632), physician. [See Goulston, Theodore (DNB00).]  GUMBLE, THOMAS, D.D. (d. 1676), biographer, for some time vicar of Chipping Wycombe, Bucks (cf. Lamb MSS. Aug. 972, p. 79; Price, the King's Restauration, p. 35) was appointed chaplain to Monck, then in Scotland, at the end of 1655 (, Life of Monck, p. 92 ). Monck, finding him an excellent man of business, entrusted him with many delicate commissions. On 4 Jan. 1659–60 he was despatched from Newcastle-upon-Tyne to London with Monck's letters to the parliament and city (ib. pp. 202–3;, Life of Monck, p. 77). On his arrival (12 Jan.) parliament ordered 100l. to be given him (, Memorials, p. 693), and recommended him (26 Jan.) for the first vacant fellowship at Eton (Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1659–60). In 1661 he was made D.D. of Cambridge by royal mandate, and on 6 July of the same year was collated to the twelfth prebendal stall in Winchester Cathedral (, Fasti, ed. Hardy, iii. 43). On 21 May 1663 he received the rectory of East Lavant, Sussex (Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1663–4, pp. 57, 146). Much to his regret, ill-health prevented him from performing his duty as chaplain of the Royal Charles during the conflict with the Dutch in February 1666 (ib. 1665–6, p. 262). He died in 1676, apparently unmarried, for his estate was administered to on 10 March 1676–7 by his brothers Stephen and John Gumble (Administration Act Book, P. C. C., 1677, f. 41). He is represented as an amiable and kindly man(cf. Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1667, p. 266). His only published work was a valuable 'Life of General Monck, Duke of Albemarle, &c., with Remarks upon his Actions,'8vo,London, 1671. A French translation (by Guy Miege) was issued at London in 1672. Some copies of the translation have a second additional title-page, printed at Cologne in 1712, when the work was sold to advance the cause of the Pretender.

[Cal. State Papers (Dom.), 1659–60, pp. 308, 324, 400, 592, 595, 1663–5, p. 554.]  GUNDLEUS, (6th cent.), Welsh saint. [See ]  GUNDRADA (d. 1085), wife of William de Warenne, first earl of Surrey, was long supposed to have been a daughter either of William the Conqueror and his queen Matilda of Flanders, or of Matilda by an earlier marriage with Gerbod, advocate St. Bertin. There is, however, no contemporary evidence for either of these hypotheses, while there is a good deal that tells strongly though indirectly, against both(Engl. Hist. Rev. No. xii. 680–701). All that is really known about Gundrada's parentage is that she was sister to Gerbod the Fleming, earl of Chester 1070–71 ( ed. Duchesne, 522 A, C; Liber de Hyda, p. 296), and therefore probably daughter of another Gerbod who was advocate of St. Bertin, 1026–67 (Archæological Journal, iii. 16, 17). The date of her marriage with William de Warenne is not ascertained, but their second son-was old enough to command troops in 1090 ( 690 A); and that they were married before 1077 is also shown by the appointment in that year of the first prior of St. Pancras at Lewes (Ann. Bermondsey, s.a. 1077),the earliest Cluniac house in England, of which they were joint founders. It is said that they had started on a pilgrimage to Rome, but owing to the war between the pope and the emperor they were obliged to content themselves with visiting divers monasteries in France and Burgundy; they made a long stay at Cluny, and the outcome of their gratitude for the hospitality which they experienced there was the foundation of Lewes priory (Monast. Angl. v. 12;, Charters of Cluni, i. 47, 48). The story comes from a fifteenth-century copy of a charter which purports to have been granted by William de Warenne himself, but which in its present form has almost certainly received interpolations; there seems, however, no reason to doubt the genuineness of this part of it. Gundrada had two sons, William, afterwards second earl of Warenne and Surrey ( 680 D), and Rainald (ib. 690 A and 815 A),and a daughter, Edith, wife, first of Gerald de Gournay, and secondly of Drogo of Moncey (Cont., l. viii. c. 8). Dugdale (Baronage, i. 74) gives her another daughter, married to Erneis's de Colungis or Coluncis, but the Roger, Erneis's son, who was 'nepos Guillelmi de Garenna,' was clearly something more than a boy when he entered the monastery of St. Evroul before 1089 ( 574 C, 600 B), and must therefore have been not Gundrada's grandson, but her husband's nephew. She died in child-birth, 27 May 1085, at Castle Acre, and was buried in the chapter-house at Lewes ( Baronage, i. 74, from register of Lewes). Her tombstone was found in Ifield Church (whither it had apparently been removed at the dissolution) at the end of the last century, and placed in St. John's Church Southover (Lewes),where it now is; it is of black marble


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/347

and bears an inscription in Latin verse, beginning 'Stirps Gundrada ducum' (, Mem. of Earls of Warren and Surrey, i. 59–60). Her remains, enclosed in a chest with her name on the lid, were discovered side by side with those of her husband on the site of Lewes priory in October 1845. The inscriptions on the lid and the tombstone seem to date from the early thirteenth century; the remains were probably removed from their original place and re-interred at that time, perhaps when the church was rebuilt, 1243–68 (Journ. Archæol. Assoc. i. 347–350).

[To the references given above it need only be added that Mr. Freeman has enumerated all the materials for the Gundrada controversy, examined all that has been written about it, and summed up its results in the English Historical Review, No. xii. pp. 680–701, October 1888.]  GUNDRY, NATHANIEL (1701?–1754), lawyer and politician, was born at Lyme Regis, and entered as a member of the Middle Temple in 1720. In 1725 he was called to the bar, when he migrated to Lincoln's Inn. At the dissolution in 1741 he was returned to parliament for the borough of Dorchester, and was re-elected in 1747. He took his place among the opponents of Sir Robert Walpole, and on their triumph he was made a king's counsel, when Sir Charles Hanbury Williams wrote: 'That his Majesty might not want good and able counsellors learned in the law, lo ! Murray the orator and Nathaniel Gundry were appointed King's counsel' (cf. Willims's satire, Lessons for the Day, 1742. The Second Chapter of the Book of Preferment). His practice justified his being regarded as a candidate for the office of solicitor-general, but he was passed by, possibly because, as the satirists alleged, his manners were stiff and pretentious. On the death of Sir Thomas Abney [q. v.] in 1750 Gundry was appointed a judge of the common pleas. After he had been on the bench four years he, like Abney, was carried off by gaol fever, while on circuit at Launceston, on 23 March 1754, aged 53. He was buried at Musbury, near Axminster, and a tablet to his memory was placed against the western side of the south aisle of the parish church. A leasehold interest in the farm of Uddens in Chalbury, Dorsetshire, was acquired by him, and he built on the property a mansion which passed to his son Nathaniel, but he himself resided at Maidenhayne in Musbury, which he held on lease from Lady Drake.

His widow, Mary Kelloway, died at Richmond, Surrey, 9 Nov. 1791, aged 73.

[Hutchins's Dorset, ed. 1868,iii. 114; Pulman's Book of Axe, ed. 1875, p. 745; Foss's Judges; Works of Sir C. H. Williams, iii. 37; Gent. Mag. 1754 p. 191, 1791 pt. ii. 1159.]  GUNDULF (1024?–1108), bishop of Rochester, son of Hatheguin and Adelesia was born probably in 1024, in the Vexin in the diocese of Rouen, went to school at Rouen, and became a clerk of the cathedral. William, archdeacon of Rouen, called the 'Good soul' (Bona anima), afterwards second abbot of St. Stephen's at Caen, and archbishop of Rouen (cons. 1079, d. 1110),took a strong liking for Gundulf, and introduced him into the household of Archbishop Mauritius (cons. 1055, d. 1067). In company with William he made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem was taken ill on his way back, was left behind by the rest of the party by accident, and was found in a state of extreme exhaustion. During a storm at sea he and the archdeacon vowed that they would enter the religious life, and on his return in 1059 or 1060 he became a monk of Bec, then under the rule of its founder and first abbot, Herlwin. There he met with Lanfranc, who was then prior of Bec, and who became much attached to him. He excelled in monastic virtues, and especially in abstinence, constancy in prayer, and tenderness of conscience. He was appointed keeper and sacristan of the church, and was especially devoted to the Virgin. When Anselm entered the convent in 1060, he formed a strong friendship with Gundulf, and the two held much religious discourse together, for though Anselm was by far the more learned in the scriptures Gundulf's piety and depth of feeling, which showed itself in tears, made him a congenial companion to his new friend. In 1062 Lanfranc was appointed abbot of St. Stephen's at Caen (Chron. Beccense, p. 199; the date is uncertain;, p. 494, gives it as 1066, see Norman Conquest, iii. 110; the earlier date may perhaps refer to Lanfranc's acceptance of the appointment and departure from Bec, the latter to his formal appointment), and took Gundulf and several other monks of Bec with him. While Gundulf was at Caen he persuaded his mother to enter Matilda's house of the Holy Trinity, which was dedicated in 1066. There is a story that one day Gundulf and two other monks sought to tell their future fortunes by turning over the leaves of a book of the gospels, and that having told Lanfranc of the texts on which they had lighted, he prophesied that Gundulf should become a bishop (Gesta Pontiff, p. 137). On Lanfranc's elevation to the see of Canterbury in 1070 he brought Gundulf over to England with him, and as he was an


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/348

 man of business, made him his proctor, and gave him the management of the estates of the archbishopric. This good management enabled Lanfranc to devote large sums to pious objects, and Gundulf while acting as the archbishop's steward on one occasion fed the poor of London at a time of scarcity (Vita). Anselm wrote several letters to him in most affectionate terms (Epp. I., epp. 4, 7, 14sqq.) In 1076 the see of Rochester fell vacant by the death of Ernost, one of the monks who had followed Lanfranc from Caen. Ernost had not held the bishopric for a complete year, and had not therefore had time to make any reform in his church, which had been left by Bishop Siward, his English predecessor, in a poor condition. It was served by secular canons, and their number had dwindled down to five, while the fabric itself was nearly in ruins. Lanfranc had the matter in his own hands, for the see of Rochester was dependent on Canterbury, and the bishop was appointed by the monks under the influence of the archbishop. He was anxious to make the chapter a monastic body, and in order to accomplish this it was necessary to give the bishopric to a monk. Accordingly, he appointed Gundulf to the see, and secured the assent of the king before he announced the appointment to the Rochester clergy.

Gundulf was consecrated in Christ Church, Canterbury, on 19 March 1077. He was a famous architect, and at once set about rebuilding his church, and when the choir was completed translated the relics of Paulinus to a new shrine. In order to carry out the scheme of reform which Lanfranc proposed, he also raised conventual buildings. He made his chapter monastic, and in place of the five canons put sixty monks, all well instructed in reading and singing (Vita). He was determined to prevent any of his successors from turning out his monks and making the chapter again secular, and accordingly he secured to the monastery a separate share of the possessions of the church, and made it, as far as money matters were concerned, independent of the bishop. It has been suggested that, small as the cathedral church now is, Gundulf's building was still smaller, and that the later Norman nave 'was an enlargement rather than a rebuilding' (, William Rufus, i. 54). This seems unlikely. The parts of the now existing church which may fairly be supposed to be his work are the early portion of the crypt below the western end of the chancel, a very small bit of the west front, and the massive tower on the northern side. To these it has been proposed to add the masonry of the walls of the nave, but this of course must be mere guess-work; the arcades are later. Lanfranc helped the bishop so largely in this undertaking that the restoration is ascribed to him by the Canterbury historian (, ii. 368). Gundulf was employed by the Conqueror to build the Tower of London, and while engaged in this work lodged at the house of a burgher named Eadmer Anhoende, who was evidently strongly attached to him, was buried along with his wife in Rochester Cathedral, and founded an obit there (Registrum Roffense, p. 32). Gundulf was certainly the architect of the White Tower. Before he died he must have seen the keep completed and some progress made in the walls of the enceinte. He built a castle at Rochester for William Rufus at a cost of 60l., being compensated by the manor of Hedenham in Buckinghamshire, about which there had been a dispute between him and the king. The present tower at Rochester, however, is not his work, but was built by archbishop William of Corbeuil (, ii. 382). At West Mailing, where he appears to have constantly resided, he built a noble tower for himself, the shell of which still remains perfect and unaltered. It is usually called St. Leonard's Tower. The broad and massive tower of the parish church, is also probably his work. He built a nunnery at Malling, of which there are some remains; the lower stage of the west front is no doubt part of his building. The nunnery was dedicated in 1103. Among the gifts that he made to his abbey was Dartford, and there the Norman parts of the church may be ascribed to him.

In spite of all his architectural engagements, he was diligent in performing his episcopal duties. He constantly acted as Lanfranc's commissary, and held ordinations and other functions for him. Nor did he ever fail when at Rochester to perform the service of the mass twice each day. Lanfranc recovered some of the estates of the see for him, and gave him Malling, which he won from Bishop Odo, earl of Kent, in a suit on Pennenden Heath. On the death of Lanfranc in 1089 he took charge of the diocese of Canterbury, and was sent by the king to punish the monks of St. Augustine's and some of the inhabitants of Canterbury for raising a riot (Anglo-Saxon Chron. App. p. 389). When his old friend Anselm was appointed to the see of Canterbury, Gundulf wrote to the monks of Bec, entreating them not to grudge resigning their abbot (Epp. iii. ep. 3), and he entertained the archbishop-designate in various manors belonging to the see before his consecration (Historia Novorum, col. 369). He is said to


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/349

have been liked by Rufus, who gave him the manor of Lambeth to make up for the expense brought upon him by the siege of Rochester Castle during the rebellion of 1088 (Vita). When Rufus had recovered from his severe sickness in 1093, the bishop one day while talking familiarly with him expressed a hope that he would lead a better life, to which the king replied with a strange piece of blasphemy. In the council held at Rockingham in March on the questions at issue between the king and Anselm, Gundulf was the only bishop who abstained from disowning the primate (S. Anselmi Vita II., iii. 24). He was present at the dedication of Gloucester Abbey on 15 July 1100. His name appears in attestation of the charter which Henry I published at the beginning of his reign. Henry treated him with marked respect, and his queen, Matilda, liked to talk with him, and caused him to baptise her son William. He is said to have remonstrated with the lords who rebelled against Henry, and to have convinced some among them of the evil of their conduct. In 1102 he assisted Gilbert, abbot of Westminster, to examine the body of the Confessor, and from pious motives tried to possess himself of a hair of the royal saint's beard, but found that he could not pull it out (, col.408). He was attended in his last illness by Anselm and Ralph, abbot of Seez, who succeeded him in his bishopric and afterwards became archbishop of Canterbury. He died on 7 March 1108 at the age of eighty-four, and was buried by Anselm in his cathedral church. The tomb said to be his, on the south side of the choir, near the altar, is composed of rough slabs of stone with neither inscription nor moulding to mark its age, but may perhaps contain his body (, Gent. Mag. 1863, ii. 689). Gundulf's Bible, formerly at Amsterdam, and more recently in Sir Thomas Phillipps's collection, contains the inscription 'prima pars bibliæ per bonæ memoriæ Gundulphum Roffensem episcopum' (Hist. Lit. de la France, ix. 374). His holiness of character is generally recognised, and is amply proved by his long friendship with Anselm. He appears in the legend of Bishop Wulfstan's appeal to the Confessor as endeavouring at Lanfranc's order to pull the bishop's staff from the king's tomb (, col. 406), and in a story about the death of Rufus. The king has a dream; the bishop explains it to him, exhorts him to mend his ways, and gives him absolution (, l.40523 sqq.;, De Instructione Principum, p. 174).

[Vita Gundulfi, Anglia Sacra, ii. 273 sqq. and Migne's Patrologia Lat. vol. clix. col. 813 sqq., by a contemporary monk of Rochester; Ernulf's Hist. Roffen. in Wharton's Anglia Sacra, i. 336 sqq.; Thorpe's Registrum Roffense, p. 31; Epistolæ S. Anselmi, Eadmer, Vita S. Anselmi, Historia Novorum, Migne's Patrologia Lat. vols. clviii. clix.; for Gundulf's buildings, Clark in Old London, Archæological Institute, vol. 1866, p. 97; Clark's Mediæval Military Architecture, ii. 252, 291; Parker in Gent. Mag. 1863, ii. 255, and Freeman; Epp. Lanfranci, Chron. Beccenes, Vita Lanfranci, Giles's Patres Eccl. Anglic.; Ailred of Rievaulx. cols. 406, 408, in Twysden's Scriptores Decem; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, pp. 136, 137, Anglo Saxon Chron. App., Gervase of Canterbury, i. 367, ii. 376 (all Ro ls Ser.); Giraldus, De Instructione Principum, Anglia-Christiana Society; Benoit de Ste. More, ed. Fr. Michel; Freeman's Norman Conquest, vol. iv. passim, and William Rufus, vols. i. and ii. passim.]  GUNN, BARNABAS (d. 1753), organist and composer, was organist at Gloucester Cathedral, 1732 to 1740; and held a like office at St. Philip's and St. Martin's churches, Birmingham, probably from 1740 until 1753; while from about 1750 until 1753 he seems to have held a similar post at Chelsea Hospital. One Barnabas Gunn died, according to the books of Chelsea Hospital, early in 1753, and a Barnabas Gunn was buried at Birmingham 11 Feb. the same year. In the following April a new organist was appointed at St. Martin's, Birmingham. A Barnabas, son of Barnabas Gunn, buried at Birmingham in 1742, was probably a son of the organist. In Grove's 'Dictionary' two organists, named respectively Barnabas and Barnaby Gunn, appear, but there seems little doubt that these names are merely variations of the name of one person.

Gunn was a subscriber to Galliard's ‘Hymn of Adam and Eve,’ 1728. He published at Gloucester, 1736, a thin quarto volume, ‘Two Cantatas and Six Songs,’ prefaced by a poetical address, ‘to all lovers of musick,’ and a list of 464 subscribers, including the name of Handel and other musicians, and members of the choirs of Gloucester and Worcester. At Birmingham, in 1745, he brought out ‘Six Solos for Violin and Violoncello,’ and the musical setting of a hymn by Dr. Watts. In London he published ‘Six Setts of Lessons for the Harpsichord,’ and ‘Twelve English Songs, Serious and Humourous,’ written in a less pedantic vein than his instrumental music.

[Information kindly given by Dr. C. Lee Williams, Gloucester, the Rev. H. B. Bowlby, Birmingham, and the secretary to Chelsea Hospital; Bunce's Hist. of Old St. Martin's; Rimbault's notes to Lysons's Meetings of the Three Choirs, p. 37; British Museum Music Library; P. C. C. Admon. Act Book, 1753; Groves Dict. i. 611.]


text:
Author talk:Alexandre Dumas (1802-1870)

Internet Archive
Dumas - The Works of Alexandre Dumas Complete in Nine Volumes, Collier, 1893, tome I Dumas - The Works of Alexandre Dumas Complete in Nine Volumes, Collier, 1893, tome II Dumas - The Works of Alexandre Dumas Complete in Nine Volumes, Collier, 1893, tome III Dumas - The Works of Alexandre Dumas Complete in Nine Volumes, Collier, 1893, tome IV Dumas - The Works of Alexandre Dumas Complete in Nine Volumes, Collier, 1893, tome V Dumas - The Works of Alexandre Dumas Complete in Nine Volumes, Collier, 1893, tome VI Dumas - The Works of Alexandre Dumas Complete in Nine Volumes, Collier, 1893, tome VII Dumas - The Works of Alexandre Dumas Complete in Nine Volumes, Collier, 1893, tome VIII Dumas - The Works of Alexandre Dumas Complete in Nine Volumes, Collier, 1893, tome IX

Tome V is missing

--Zyephyrus (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

title: Author talk:Alexandre Dumas (1802-1870)


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Innocent/Innocent XIII


text: Talk:Daisy Bell

title: Talk:Daisy Bell


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Gulliver, George


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Gully, James Manby


text:
Oh! Mr Porter

Lately I just spent a week with my old Aunt Brown, Came up to see the wond'rous sights of famous London Town. Just a week I had of it, all round the place we'd roam, Wasn't I sorry on the day I had to go back home? Worried about with packing, I arrived late at the station, Dropped my hat-box in the mud, the things all fell about, Got my ticket, said 'good-bye', "Right away!" the guard did cry, But I found the train was wrong, And shouted out:

CHORUS. Oh! Mister Porter, what shall I do? I want to go to Birmingham And they're taking me on to Crewe. Send me back to London as quickly as you can, Oh! Mister Porter, what a silly girl I am.

 * 2

The porter would not stop the train, but laughed and said "You must Keep your hair on, Mary Ann, and mind that you don't bust!" Some old gentleman inside declared that it was hard, Said, "Look out of the window, Miss, and try and call the guard." Didn't I, too, with all my might, I nearly balanced over, But my old friend grasped my leg, and pulled me back again, Nearly fainting with the fright, I sank into his arms, a sight, Went into hysterics but I cried in vain:-
 * (CHORUS.)

 * 3

On his clean old shirt front then I laid my trembling head, "Do take it easy, rest awhile," the dear old chappie said. "If you make a fuss of me and on me do not frown, You shall have my mansion, dear, away in London town." Wouldn't you think me silly if I said I could not like him? Really he seemed a nice old boy, so I replied this way: I will be your own for life, your imay doodleum little wife, If you'll never tease me any more I say.
 * (CHORUS.)

title: Oh! Mr Porter


text: Talk:Oh! Mr Porter

title: Talk:Oh! Mr Porter


text:
Author:Thomas Le Brunn

Works

 * Oh! Mr Porter

title: Author:Thomas Le Brunn


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


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Gulston, Joseph


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Gulston, Theodore


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


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/351

  in the counter in Wood Street on a charge of complicity in Essex's rebellion; on the 19th Essex asked De La Warr's pardon for bringing his son into trouble, and declared that West ‘was unacquainted with the whole matter.’ He escaped very lightly and, after succeeding his father in the peerage on 24 March 1601–2, became a member of Elizabeth's privy council. He was continued in that office by James I, and on 30 Aug. 1605 he was created M.A. of Oxford University, but his energies were soon absorbed in schemes for the colonisation of Virginia.

In 1609 he became a member of the council of the Virginia company and on 28 Feb. 1609–10 he was appointed first governor and captain-general for life; in the following month he sailed for Virginia with a reinforcement of a hundred and fifty emigrants and supplies. He arrived on 10 June, just in time to prevent the dispersion of the struggling colony. He appointed a council and sent out two expeditions in search of food; in a despatch sent home on 7 July he impressed on the English government the need of liberal support for the colonists and of care in their selection. He himself had returned to England by June 1611 (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1611–18, p. 48), and gave a very favourable report of the state of the colony; this was printed in the same year as ‘The Relation of the Right Honourable the Lord De-la-Warre, Lord Governour … of the colonie planted in Virginea to the Lords and others of the counsell of Virginea touching his unexpected returne home …’ (London, 8vo); another edition appeared in the same year and was reprinted in 1858, 4to.

On 16 March 1617–18 Chamberlain reported that De La Warr had again sailed for Virginia, and on 14 Oct. following news had reached England of his death, which took place during the voyage on 7 June; the exact locality is a matter of dispute, but it was somewhere off the coast of Virginia or New England. De La Warr's connection with Virginia had been comparatively brief, but his intervention at a critical moment undoubtedly saved the colony from ruin, and Alexander Brown goes so far as to say ‘if any one man can be called the founder of Virginia … I believe he is that man’ (Genesis U.S.A., ii. 1049). His name is commemorated in Delaware bay, river, and state.

De La Warr's widow was on 20 Sept. 1619 granted a pension for thirty-one years out of the dues on imports from Virginia; it was renewed in 1634, but the outbreak of the civil war stopped it; in 1662, however, she was still alive and a fresh grant was made (Cal. State Papers, Amer. and West Indies, 1661–8, Nos. 239, 249). She had in 1651 regained from the committee for compounding lands which she had let to Sir Edward Nicholas [q. v.], and had been sequestrated for his delinquency (Cal. Comm. for Compounding, p. 2895). By her De La Warr had seven children; the eldest son, Henry, born on 3 Oct. 1603, succeeded as fourth or thirteenth baron, and died in 1628; his great-grandson, John West, first earl De La Warr, is separately noticed. Several of the daughters, with their mother, acted in a court masque on twelfth night, 1616–17.

[The family papers are preserved at Buckhurst and Knole, but they contain little about the third Baron De La Warr; see Hist. MSS. Comm. 3rd Rep. p. 157, and 4th Rep. pp. x, xiii, 276. See also Cal. State Papers, America and West Indies, 1574–1668 passim; Cal. State Papers, Dom.; Buccleuch and Queensberry MSS. (Hist. MSS. Comm.), i. 103; Court and Times of James I; Captain John Smith's Works, ed. Arber, passim; Stith's Discovery and Settlement of Virginia, 1747; Neill's Virginia Company, 1869, Early Settlement of Virginia, 1878, and Virginia Carolorum, 1886; Proceedings of Virginia Company (Virginia Hist. Soc.), 1888; Brown's Genesis of the United States, 1890; Shirley's Stemmata Shirleiana, pp. 180, 198; Clutterbuck's Hertfordshire, i. 339; Reg. Univ. Oxon. (Oxf. Hist. Soc.); Foster's Alumni Oxon. 1500–1714; Burke's and G. E. C[okayne]'s Complete Peerages.]  WEST, THOMAS (1720–1779), topographer, was born in Scotland in 1720, received his education in the public schools of Edinburgh, and was for some time a mercantile traveller. He entered the Society of Jesus at Watten on 7 Sept. 1751, under the name of Daniel, made his higher studies and theology in the college of the English jesuits at Liège, and was professed of the four vows on 2 Feb. 1769. Being sent on the English mission, he was stationed first at Holywell, next at Ulverston, afterwards at Titcup Hall, near Dalton in Furness, and finally at Sisergh, Westmorland. He died at Sisergh on 10 June 1779, and was buried in the choir or chapel belonging to the Strickland family in Kendal church.

He was the author of: 1. ‘The Antiquities of Furness; or an Account of the Royal Abbey of St. Mary, in the Vale of Nightshade, near Dalton in Furness,’ London, 1774, 4to; new edit., with additions by William Close, Ulverston, 1805, 8vo; reprinted, Ulverston, 1813, 8vo. 2. ‘A Guide to the Lakes: dedicated to the Lovers of Landscape Studies, and to all who have visited, or intend to visit, the Lakes in Cumberland, Westmorland, and Lancashire,’ Lon-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/352

 don, 1778, 8vo, pp. 203; 2nd edit., revised throughout and greatly enlarged, London, 1780, 8vo; 11th edit., Kendal, 1821, 8vo. He also wrote an ‘Account of Antiquities discovered in Lancaster, 1776,’ which appeared in ‘Archæologia’ (1779, v. 98), and a description ‘Of a Volcanic Hill near Inverness,’ printed in 1777 in ‘Philosophical Transactions.’

[Antiquities of Furness, ed. Close, 1805, p. 409; Catholic Miscellany, ix. 42; Stothert's Catholic Missions in Scotland, p. 625; Gibson's Lydiate Hall, p. 45; Oliver's Jesuit Collections, p. 39; Foley's Records, v. 357, vii. 192; Watt's Bibl. Brit.; De Backer's Bibl. des Écrivains de la Compagnie de Jésus.]  WEST, WILLIAM (fl. 1568–1594), author of ‘Symbolæographia,’ was the son of Thomas West of Beeston in Nottinghamshire, by his wife Anne, daughter of William Bradbury of the Peak. He was admitted a student of the Inner Temple in November 1568, being then described as of Darley, Derbyshire. He made a fortune by practice in law, and settled at Rotherham in Yorkshire. In 1590 he published ‘Symbolæographia, which may be termed the Art, Description, or Image of Instruments, Covenants, Contracts, &c., or the Notarie or Scriuener’ (London, 8vo). This work, which was dedicated to Sir Edmund Anderson [q. v.], was a general practical treatise on English law under its several divisions, and was held in great esteem at the time. The demand for it was so great that West immediately began to prepare a second edition, practically rewriting the whole book. He divided his treatise into two parts, and divested it of many superfluous classical quotations with which he had encumbered the first edition, thus rendering it more suitable for practical lawyers. The first part of the new edition (which dealt chiefly with covenants, contracts, and wills) appeared in 1592 (London, 4to). It was reissued in 1610, 1618, 1622, and 1632. The second part, with a new treatise on equity appended, appeared in 1594. It was dedicated to Edward Coke. New editions were issued in 1611, 1618, and 1627. The date of West's death is unknown, and some of the later editions may have been edited by his sons. He was twice married: first, to Winifred, daughter of Adam Eyre of Offerton; and, secondly, to Audrey Mann. By his first wife he had two daughters and five sons, of whom William, the eldest, was a student of the Inner Temple.

West also edited ‘Les tenures du monsieur Littleton’ (London, 1581, 8vo) in Norman French.

[Glover's Visitation of Yorkshire, ed. Foster, p. 359; Students admitted to the Inner Temple, 1547–1660, pp. 65, 128; Marvin's Legal Bibliogr.; Guest's Historic Notices of Rotherham, 1879, pp. 374–89.]  WEST, WILLIAM (1770–1854), bookseller and antiquary, was born on 23 Oct. 1770 at Whaddon in the parish of Croydon, Surrey. Being tired of agricultural pursuits, in December 1784, when just fourteen, he set out on foot for London in company with an elder brother. He was apprenticed to Robert Colley, liveryman of the Company of Stationers, and was turned over by him to Thomas Evans (1739–1803) [q. v.], the Paternoster bookseller who beat Goldsmith; a brother of West had been articled to Evans since 1778. Before he was out of his time West married and had three children. At the age of eighteen he became manager to Evans, upon whose retirement the business was carried on by Evans the younger, with the assistance of West. Young Evans was imprudent and had to leave the country, and West went into business himself. In 1808 he was living in Cork, and published a guide to that city. Here he remained until 1830, when he printed his ‘Recollections.’ He then went to Birmingham, and devoted himself with much industry to the compilation of topographical works. Towards the end of his life he resided in London, and obtained employment as a bookseller's assistant or in literary work. His last years were passed in the Charterhouse, where he died on 17 Nov. 1854.

West came of a long-lived race and had a large family. One daughter married Frederick Calvert, who made the drawings for one of his books. His son Samuel was a portrait-painter. A lithographed portrait of West, at the age of sixty, by his son, is prefixed to the ‘Recollections.’

He wrote: 1. ‘Tavern Anecdotes and Reminiscences of the origin of Signs, Clubs, Coffee Houses, Streets, City Companies, Wards, &c., by one of the Old School,’ London [1825], sm. 8vo (anonymous). 2. ‘Fifty Years' Recollections of an Old Bookseller, consisting of Anecdotes, Characteristic Sketches, and Original Traits and Eccentricities of Authors, Artists, Actors, Books, Booksellers, and of the Periodical Press for the last half-century, and an unlimited Retrospect, including some circumstances relative to the Letters of Junius,’ Cork, 1830, 8vo (portraits and plates); 2nd edit. 1st ser., to which is added some additional sketches of the late Captain Grose, London, 1837, 8vo (the autobiographical portion is alone of any value). 3. ‘The History, Topography, and


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/353

 Directory of Warwickshire, inclusive of some portions of the ancient histories of Rous, Camden, Speed, and Dugdale,’ Birmingham, 1830, 8vo (with etchings and map and Birmingham directory). 4. ‘Picturesque Views and Descriptions of Cities, Towns, Castles, and Mansions, and other Objects of interesting Features in Staffordshire and Shropshire, from Original Drawings taken expressly for this Work by Frederick Calvert,’ Birmingham, 1830–31, 2 vols. 4to. 5. ‘Three Hundred and Fifty Years' Retrospection of an old Bookseller, containing an Account of the Origin and Progress of Printing, &c.,’ Cork, 1835, 8vo (plates, supplementary to No. 2). 6. ‘Description of some of the principal Paintings, Machinery, Models, Apparatus, and other Curiosities at the Leeds Public Exhibition, by W. West and E. Baines, junr.,’ Leeds, 1839, 8vo. 7. ‘The Aldine Magazine of Biography, Bibliography, Criticism, and the Arts,’ vol. i. 1839, London (edited by West, who contributed ‘Letters to my Son at Rome,’ which are full of interesting information relating to contemporary booksellers; the magazine ran from 1 Dec. 1838 to June 1839).

[West's Fifty Years' Recollections, 1830; Gent. Mag. 1855, ii. 214; Nichols's Lit. Illustr. 1858, viii. 523; Allibone's Dict. of Engl. Lit.]  WESTALL, RICHARD (1765–1836), historical painter, came of a Norwich family, but was born at Hertford in 1765. In 1779 he was apprenticed to an heraldic engraver on silver named John Thompson in Gutter Lane, Cheapside. While he was thus employed, the miniature-painter John Alefounder [q. v.] remarked his ability, and advised him to become a painter. He studied after his day's work at an evening school of art with such success that he was able to exhibit a portrait-drawing in 1784 at the Royal Academy, where he was admitted a student in 1785. On completing the term of his apprenticeship in 1786, he commenced his career as an artist, and soon attracted attention by his large and highly finished drawings in watercolour at the Royal Academy. These were chiefly of historical subjects, ‘Jubal,’ ‘Esau seeking Isaac's Blessing,’ ‘Mary Queen of Scots on her Way to Execution,’ ‘Sappho chanting the Hymn of Love,’ ‘Hesiod instructing the Greeks,’ and the like. They were varied by portraits and by pictures in oils of rustic subjects. Westall became an associate in 1792 and an academician in 1794. From 1790 to 1794 he lived at 57 Greek Street, the corner house of Soho Square, which he shared with Thomas Lawrence, each of the artists placing his name on one of the two entrances to the house. In 1794 Westall removed to 54 Upper Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square.

About this time he took to the illustration of books, which continued throughout his life to be his principal occupation. He was employed at first by Alderman John Boydell [q. v.], for whose ‘Shakespeare’ he designed a number of illustrations between 1795 and 1802, in addition to painting five pictures for the ‘Shakespeare Gallery,’ which were engraved on a larger scale. For Boydell, too, he designed his illustrations to ‘Milton.’ He was also employed by Macklin, and was a contributor to Bowyer's ‘History of England.’ Early in the nineteenth century he was working chiefly for John Sharpe of Piccadilly, who published a very large number of Westall's designs in Park's ‘British Classics’ (1805–9), and in his small editions of the English poets, Milton, Young, Thomson, Goldsmith, Cowper, Beattie, and others (1816–17). For Sharpe, too, he illustrated Scott's ‘Marmion’ in 1809, and Johnson's ‘Rasselas’ in 1817. For the firm of Longmans he illustrated Scott's ‘Lord of the Isles’ (1813), Campbell's ‘Pleasures of Hope’ (1818) and ‘Gertrude of Wyoming’ (1822). Murray published his illustrations to Byron (1819) and Crabbe (1822). Among other books illustrated by Westall may be mentioned his own volume of poems, ‘A Day in Spring,’ 1808, with plates engraved by James and Charles Heath; ‘Illustrations to the Bible,’ thirty-one plates by Charles Heath, 1813; ‘Victories of the Duke of Wellington,’ twelve aquatint plates by Thales Fielding, 1819; ‘The Pilgrim's Progress’ and ‘Don Quixote,’ 1820; Southey's ‘Roderick,’ 1824; and John Hobart Caunter's ‘Illustrations of the Bible,’ 1835–6, 2 vols., with woodcuts after Westall and John Martin. This is by no means an exhaustive list of Westall's work in book illustration. He was second only to Stothard in the abundance with which he supplied designs to the engravers on steel trained in the school of the two Heaths, and in the popularity which his illustrations enjoyed. For their artistic merit there is not very much to be said. They soon degenerated into mannerism, and in the feminine types especially there is great monotony.

Westall was at his best in watercolour, and was the leader of a reform in figure-painting in this medium, contemporaneous with that of Thomas Girtin [q. v.] in landscape. The brilliancy of his colouring was considered novel and astonishing in his own day, though he made large use of opaque pigments. A watercolour drawing by him,


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Gundleus


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Gundrada de Warenne


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Gundry, Nathaniel


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Gundulf


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Gunn, Barnabas


text:
Citizens Against Refinery's Effects, Inc. v. United States EPA

On Petition for Review of Decision of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Bruce J. Terris, Washington, D. C. (James M. Hecker, Philip G. Sunderland, Washington, D. C., Karen H. Edgecombe, Patrick M. McSweeney, McSweeney, Stutts & Burtch, Richmond, Va., on brief), for petitioners.

Elizabeth Stein, Pollution Control Section, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Raymond W. Mushal, Pollution Control Section, Dept. of Justice, Angus Macbeth, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Land and Natural Resources Division, Charlotte Uram, Acting Chief, Pollution Control Section, Michele B. Corash, Gen. Counsel, Mitchell H. Bernstein, John D. Cooper, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., on brief), for respondent.

Roger L. Chaffe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va. (Marshall Coleman, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va., on brief), for intervenor Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board.

Gerald L. Baliles, John A. Gibney, Bell, Lacy & Baliles, Richmond, Va., Brent N. Rushforth, Albert H. Turkus, John P. Schnitker, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Washington, D. C., on brief, for intervenor Hampton Roads Energy Co.

Before HALL, PHILLIPS and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.


text: Page:Alaska days with John Muir.djvu/68

title: Page:Alaska days with John Muir.djvu/68


text:
Page:Transactions of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association, volume 1.djvu/23

 Samuel Partridge, Esq. Surgeon, Birmingham.

Henry Perry, Esq. Surgeon, Henbury, near Bristol.

Thomas Phinn, Esq. Surgeon, Bath.

Matthew Pierpoint, Esq. Surgeon to the Worcester Infirmary.

Charles Pope, Esq. Surgeon, Temple Cloud, Somersetshire.

Wm. Ogilvie Porter, M. D. Bristol.

Richard Powell, Esq. Surgeon, Bristol.

Henry Prince, Esq. Resident Apothecary, Bath Hospital.

T. B. Proctor, Esq. Surgeon, Leintwardine.

Wm. Prosser, Esq. Surgeon, Monmouth.

John Freer Proud, Esq. Surgeon to the General Dispensary, Wolverhampton.

James Prowse, Esq. Surgeon, Bristol.

James Cowles Prichard, M. D. F. R. S. Bristol; Physician to the Bristol Infirmary.

John Prichard, Esq. Surgeon, Leamington.

James Pritchard, Esq. Surgeon, Stratford-on-Avon,

John Rayment, Esq. Worcester.

Reynolds, M. D. Liverpool.

David Rice, Esq. Surgeon, Stratford-on-Avon.

W. H. Ricketts, Esq. Surgeon, Droitwich.

Martin Ricketts, Esq. Surgeon, Droitwich.

Henry Riley, M. D. Bristol; Senior Physician to St. Peter's Hospital, and Lecturer on Anatomy.

Archibald Robertson, M. D. Physician to the Northampton Infirmary.

Thomas Roblyn, Esq. Senior Surgeon to the Clifton Dispensary, Hotwells, Bristol.

Christopher Royston, Esq. Surgeon, Redditch, Worcestershire.

J. Rumsey, M. D. Amersham, Bucks.

John Rutter, M. D. Liverpool.

Edward Salmon, Esq. Surgeon, Thornbury, Gloucestershire.

William Sainsbury, M. D. Corsham, Wiltshire.

Roger Scott, M. D. Physician to the South Dispensary, Liverpool.

Charles Seager, Esq. Surgeon, Cheltenham.

Wm. Frowd Seagram, Esq. Surgeon, Warminster.

Frederick Seagram, Esq. Surgeon, Warminster.

Congreve Selwyn, Esq. Surgeon, Ledbury.

John B. Shelton, Esq. Surgeon, Bromyard.


text:
Translation:Attempt of a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies

Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern


text:
Page:Alaska days with John Muir.djvu/84

72 we landed the crew would begin to dispute concerning the best place to make camp. But old Tow-a-att, with the mast in his hand, would march straight as an arrow to the likeliest spot of all, stick down his mast as a tent-pole and begin to set up the tent, the others invariably acquiescing in his decision as the best possible choice. At our first meal Muir's sense of humor cost us one-third of a roll of butter. We invited our captain to take dinner with us. I got out the bread and other viands, and set the two-pound roll of butter beside the bread and placed both by Tow-a-att. He glanced at the roll of butter and at the three who were to eat, measured with his eye one-third of the roll, cut it off with his hunting knife and began to cut it into squares and eat it with great gusto. I was about to interfere and show

title: Page:Alaska days with John Muir.djvu/84


text:
Translation talk:Attempt of a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies

Attempt at vs. attempting of + infinitive
Attempt of a Theory is not good English in this meaning. Lorentz attempted at formulating a theory. It would be more correct to translate Attempt at a Theory. The earliest bibliotgraphical references on internet in English to this work use indeed this translation. Arjen Dijksman (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/357

Westcott in April and May 1797. Towards the end of the year she joined the fleet off Cadiz under the Earl of St. Vincent, and in May 1798 was one of the ships sent up the Mediterranean [see ] to join Sir Horatio Nelson (Viscount Nelson) [q. v.]. In the battle of the Nile her position in the rear of the line made her rather late in coming into action, and in the darkness and smoke she ran her jibboom into the main-rigging of the French Heureux, in which position she remained caught for several minutes and suffered heavy loss. At this time Westcott was killed by a musket-ball in the throat, but the ship was gallantly fought through the battle by her first lieutenant, Cuthbert, who was promoted to the vacant command on the next day by Nelson.

It is as one of the celebrated ‘band of brothers’ and by his death in the hour of victory that Westcott is best known. Collingwood wrote of him: ‘A good officer and a worthy man; but, if it was a part of our condition to choose a day to die on, where could he have found one so memorable, so eminently distinguished among great days?’ And Goodall wrote: ‘He sleeps in the bed of honour, and in all probability will be immortalised among the heroes in the Abbey. Requiescat in pace. Never could he have died more honourably. I have him to lament among many deserving men whom I have patronised, that have passed away in the prime of their lives’ (, Nelson Despatches, iii. 86–7). A monument to his memory was erected at the public expense in St. Paul's. At Honiton also a monument was erected by subscription.

Westcott left a widow and daughter. In January 1801, passing through Honiton, Nelson invited them to breakfast, and presented Mrs. Westcott with his own Nile medal, saying, ‘You will not value it less because Nelson has worn it.’ On 17 Jan. 1801 he wrote to Lady Hamilton: ‘At Honiton I visited Captain Westcott's mother — poor thing, except from the bounty of government and Lloyd's, in very low circumstances. The brother is a tailor, but had they been chimney-sweepers it was my duty to show them respect’ (, Nelson's Friendships, i. 64).

[There is no record of Westcott's life beyond the logs and pay-books of the ships in which he served, in the Public Record Office. So far as it can be tested, the traditional anecdote (Naval Chronicle, xii. 453) is unworthy of credit; but it seems probable that, whether in a ship of war or a merchantman, Westcott's beginnings were very humble.]

WESTERN, CHARLES CALLIS, (1767–1844), elder son of Charles Western of Rivenhall, Essex, by Frances Shirley, daughter and heiress of William Bollan of London, and grandson of Thomas Western (d. 1765), by Anne, daughter of Robert Callis, was born on 9 Aug. 1767. His great-grandfather, Thomas Western (d. 1733) of Rivenhall, married Mary, daughter and coheiress of Sir Richard Shirley of Preston, Sussex, a near relative of the three famous brothers of Elizabethan fame, Sir Antony, Sir Robert, and Sir Thomas Shirley [q. v.]; a group of Western and his family was painted by Hogarth, and is now at the family seat, Felix Hall, Kelvedon, Essex.

Young Western was educated at Newcomb's school, Hackney, at Eton, and at Cambridge, but apparently left the university without graduating. His father died when he was four years old, and upon attaining his majority he succeeded to the Rivenhall estates, purchasing, two years later, that of Felix Hall, Kelvedon. To this mansion, where he resided, he added a fine classic portico, constructed from a scale drawing of the Roman temple of Fortuna Virilis, given in Desgodetz's ‘Édifices Antiques de Rome,’ Paris, 1682. He filled the house with valuable busts, urns, sarcophagi, and other objects collected during his travels abroad. They are given in a ‘Descriptive Sketch of Ancient Statues, Busts, &c. at Felix Hall … with plates of the most striking objects in the Collection,’ Chelmsford, 1833.

Western was returned to parliament on 16 June 1790 as member for Maldon, which borough he represented until 1812, when he obtained a seat for his county, and retained it for twenty years. During his forty-two years in parliament he became the mouthpiece of the agricultural interests in the commons, and boldly attacked, although without any immediate result, the currency question, with which the welfare of agriculture was, he considered, indissolubly bound. If not the author, he was one of the leading promoters of the corn bill of 1815, yet through his long life he remained a staunch advocate of protection, as strongly opposed to the fixed duty of the whigs as to the free-trade doctrines of the league. On 7 March 1816 he moved that the house should resolve itself into committee to consider the distressed state of agriculture in the United Kingdom (Speech printed in the Pamphleteer, London, 1816, vii. 504).

The treatment of criminals also occupied Western's attention, and he made a tour of the gaols in several English counties before


text:
Page:Transactions of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association, volume 1.djvu/134

 110

separably conjoined and co-operating; and when they have confined our mental relations with the external world, to the limited number of our five external senses, they have concluded that they have traced the origin of all our perceptions, and have pointed out the source of all the phenomena of the mind, or of the intellectual principle within us. But this, in fact, is far from being the case. It may appear, at first sight, a paradox; but it is true that, as far as our minds are concerned, our bodies are outside of ourselves. Some of the bodily instruments with which we are endowed, have to be learnt themselves first, before they can teach us anything. The newly-born infant has no more idea of the form of his own bodily frame, or of the different situation of its external organs, than he has of the world exterior to it. His body is, literally, outside of himself. He gradually learns that he has hands and feet, by bringing them within the sphere of his vision; and he acquaints himself, through the medium of the sense of touch, residing in those very hands, with the various localities, and relative situations, of other parts of his body. Yet, from the body thus distinct, there arises a modification of the states of the mind, from a variety of causes not duly appreciated.

There are other feelings, besides those ascribed to certain distinct organs of perception, which are, strictly speaking, sensations, are perceived by the mind, and modify its state: for instance, there are muscular feelings. There is a particular feeling, which attends the action of voluntary muscles, which acquaints the mind with their power, and informs


text:
Page:Alaska days with John Muir.djvu/85

Rh him the use we made of butter, but Muir stopped me with a wink. The old chief calmly devoured his third of the roll, and rubbing his stomach with great satisfaction pronounced it "hyas klosh (very good) glease." Of necessity we had chosen the rainiest season of the year in that dampest climate of North America, where there are two hundred and twenty-five rainy days out of the three hundred and sixty-five. During our voyage it did not rain every day, but the periods of sunshine were so rare as to make us hail them with joyous acclamation. We steered our course due westward for forty miles, then through a sinuous, island-studded passage called Rocky Strait, stopping one day to lay in a supply of venison before sailing on to the village of the Kake Indians. My habit throughout the voyage, when

title: Page:Alaska days with John Muir.djvu/85