text:
Delmas v. Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court

The plaintiff in error relies upon two propositions ruled against him by the Supreme Court of Louisiana as bringing the case within the revisory power of this court.

1. The first of these is that the court below decided that a judgment in his favor, which was otherwise conceded to be a valid prior lien, was void because the consideration of the contract on which the judgment was rendered was Confederate money.

2. That the note under which the insurance company claimed had been extended as to time of payment, and the mortgage given to secure it reinscribed, without having the stamps affixed which such agreements required.

1. In regard to the first of these propositions this court has decided, in the case of Thorington v. Smith, that a contract was not void because payable in Confederate money; and notwithstanding the apparent division of opinion on this question in the case of Hanauer v. Woodruff, we are of opinin that on the general principle announced in Thorington v. Smith the notes of the Confederacy actually circulating as money at the time a contract was made may constitute a valid consideration for such contract.

The proposition involved in this conclusion, however, does not of itself raise one of those Federal questions which belong to this court to settle conclusively for all other courts. When a decision on that point, whether holding such contract valid or void, is made upon the general principles by which courts determine whether a consideration is good or bad on principles of public policy, the decision is one we are not authorized to review. Like in many other questions of the same character, the Federal courts and the State courts, each within their own spheres, deciding on their own judgment, are not amenable to each other.

Accordingly, in several cases coming here on writ of error to the State courts where the same question of the sufficiency of Confederate money and the sale of slaves as a consideration for a contract was the error complained of, we have dismissed the writ because it appeared that the State court had rested its decision on this ground of public policy, tested by which the contract was void when made.

In Bethel v. Demaret, the first of these cases, the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State was expressly based on the general doctrine and the previous decisions of that court, and not on the constitutional provision. In the next case, The Bank of West Tennessee v. The Citizens' Bank of Louisiana, that court speaks both of the constitutional provision and the adjudications of that court made prior to the adoption of the article 127 of the Constitution. And as it was apparent from the record that the judgment of the court of original jurisdiction was rendered before that article was adopted, we could not entertain jurisdiction when the decision in that particular point was placed on a ground which existed as a fact and was beyond our control and was sufficient to support the judgment, because another reason was given which, if it had been the only one, we could review and might reverse.

In the case before us that court say in express language that they hold the judgment of the plaintiff in error void because the 127th section of the State constitution declares that it shall be so held. That article reads as follows: 'All agreements, the consideration of which was Confederate money, notes, or bonds, are null and void, and shall not be enforced by the courts of this State.' This provision was made a part of the constitution of Louisiana after the contract now in dispute was made, and if the contract was valid then, this provision clearly not only impairs but absolutely destroys its obligation within the meaning of the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States.

It has long been settled that under the act of Congress of 1824, and by reason of the peculiarity of the practice in the courts of that State, the opinions delivered by the appellate court of Louisiana are treated by us as part of the record, and are looked into to learn what they decided when their judgments are brought here by writs of error. So long as they in those opinions placed the invalidity of this class of contracts on the ground of a public policy existing at the time the contract was made, or so long as they left us to infer that such was the ground, having once before so decided, the decision presented no question over which we had any revisory power. But when, going a step further, they expressly rest the decision of the same question on the constitutional provision we have quoted, and on no other ground, the question necessarily arises, is that provision in conflict with the Constitution of the United States? And the answer to this question depends solely on the validity of the contract when made; for, if valid then, the Federal Constitution protects it from all subsequent acts of State legislation, whether in the form of constitutional or ordinary legislative enactments.

It may be said that since we know that the Supreme Court of Louisiana has in other cases held this class of contracts void in their inception, for the very reasons for which the constitution annuls them, we are bound to follow the State courts in that decision. But, as we have already said, this is not the class of questions in which we are bound to follow the State courts. It is not based on a statute of the State, or on a construction of such a statute, nor on any rule of law affecting title to lands, nor any principle which has become a settled rule of property, but on those principles of public policy designed for the protection of the State or the public, of which we must judge for ourselves, as they do when the question is fairly presented.

Besides, this court has always jealously asserted the right, when the question before it was the impairing of the obligation of a contract by State legislation, to ascertain for itself whether there was a contract to be impaired. If it were not so, the constitutional provision could always be evaded by the State courts giving such construction to the contract, or such decisions concerning its validity, as to render the power of this court of no avail in upholding it against unconstitutional State legislation.

These views are in precise conformity to what has been held by this court in the analogous subject of salves as a consideration of contracts made before the abolition of slavery. The case of Palmer v. Marston, decided at this term, was a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on the ground that that court had held such a contract void. And it was urged that it was so held by that court under section 128 of the Louisiana constitution, which declared contracts for slaves void, in the same terms that section 127 declared contracts for Confederate money void; but this court dismissed the writ of error for want of jurisdiction, because the Supreme Court of Louisiana had said in its opinion that it did not place the decision on the constitutional provision, but on the ground that the same principle had been promulgated and acted on in that court before the constitutional provision was adopted.

Yet, in the case of Hart v. White, in which the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia held such a contract void by reason of a provision in the constitution of that State, adopted after the contract was made, this court entertained jurisdiction and reversed the judgment. This was done on the ground taken in the present case, namely, that the contract being in our judgment valid when made, any constitutional provision which made it void was in violation of the Federal Constitution on the subject of impairing the obligation of contracts; and any judgment of a State court resting on such enactment of a State constitution, after the date of the contract, must be reversed in this court on error.

We are of opinion, for these reasons, that there was error in the Supreme Court of Louisiana in deciding that the judgment of Delmas was void by reason of the constitutional provision of that State concerning contracts for which Confederate notes were the consideration.

As the case must be reversed for this reason, we might pass without examination the question raised in regard to the necessity of stamps on the extension of time for the payment of the note, and on the reinscription of the mortgage; but as that may arise again in the further progress of the case, we will dispose of it now. As regards the latter, which is the mere act of the party who holds the mortgage, we are at a loss to perceive any ground on which this act of reinscription-the same as recording a deed the second time-can be held to be an agreement requiring a stamp. The assent of the mortgagor is not necessary, nor was it asked or given. Nor do we believe it was the purpose of the Stamp Act to hold a mere extension of the time of payment, indorsed on the note, without any consideration for such extension, or change in any other term or condition of the contract, to be an agreement requiring a stamp.

In the case of Pugh v. McCormick, it was held that the indorsement of a note by which the bill passed to the indorsee, did not require a stamp, and also that a writing on the back of the note by the indorser waiving demand, protest, and notice, and agreeing to be liable without them, was good without a stamp. We think this ample authority for holding that a gratuitous extension of time did not require a stamp, as both the writings relied on in that case have more of the elements of an agreement than the one before us. In the matter of the stamp, we think the court committed no error.

But for the error first considered the judgment is REVERSED, and the case remanded for further proceedings,

IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.


text: Talk:Delmas v. Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court

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


text:
Propeller Company v. United States

APPEAL from the Court of Claims; the case being this:

The New Bedford and New York Propeller Company, by a charter-party dated the 5th of April, 1864, chartered a steamer to the United States at $150 per day. The charterparty contained these clauses:

'The war risk is to be borne by the United States, the marine risk by the owner, for a period of thirty days, and as much longer as the services of the vessel may be required to be employed in such service as the United States may direct.

'The vessel is valued at $40,000, and should she be retained so long in the service of the United States that the money paid and due on account of the charter (deducting therefrom the actual cost of running and keeping in repair the said vessel during the said time, together with a net profit of 33 per cent. per annum on said appraised value) shall be equal to said appraised value, then the said vessel shall become the property of the United States without further payment, except such sum as may then be due on account of the services of said vessel, rendered under the said vessel-charter.

'And, further, if at any time during the continuance of this charter the United States shall elect to purchase the vessel, then they shall have the right to take her at the appraised value at the date of charter, and all money then already paid and due on account of said charter (deducting therefrom the actual cost of running and keeping in repair the said vessel during the said time, together with a net profit of 33 per cent. per annum on the original appraised value) shall apply on account of the said purchase.'

The steamer remained in the military service of the government until the 4th of March, 1865, when she was sunk in the Cape Fear River by the explosion of a torpedo placed there by the enemy. The owners presented to the government a claim for $40,000 for the loss of said steamer. This claim being transmitted to the proper officer, he made out an account thus:

DR.

By valuation as per charter,    $40,000 00

By 33 per cent. per annum, from 12 M., April 5th,

1864, to 4 P.M., March 4th, 1865, 10 27-3' 4-24

months,11,996 11

By running expenses, 11 months, at $2100 per month, 23,100 00

$75.096 11

CR.

To amount received from United States for services

from 12 M., April 5th, 1864, to March 4th, 1866,

4 P.M., being 333 6-24 days, at $150,  $49,975 00

Less 23 5-24 days lost  3,481 25

--  $46,493 75

Balance due,  $28,602 36

The amount so found due and no further sum was paid to and rec  eived by the owners of the vessel.

In this state of the case the owners filed a petition in the Court of Claims—

Claiming as still due, $11,397 64

In addition to the sum received, viz. 28,602 36

So as to give the whole valuation, $40,000 00

The Court of Claims found that the steamer was worth $40,000; that the United States never at any time notified to the owners their election to purchase her or to take her under the accruing or purchase clauses of the charter-party above quoted.

And held that 'the United States, under such a charter-party, became the equitable owner of the vessel to the extent of the sum earned over and above the expenses and profits stipulated for, and that to the extent of such sum the owners had received so much payment on the price of the vessel, and that whether she was taken by the United States under the option given to purchase at any time, or perished by one of the perils against which the United States engaged to insure, this accruing clause was equally applicable.' The court accordingly decreed that it was only the balance due on the price of the vessel which the original owner could claim, and not the amount of the valuation.

The owners appealed.

Messrs. N. P. Chipman and T. J. Durant, with whom was Mr. C. F. Peck, for the appellants:

The government could purchase only during the continuance of the charter-party; but at the time of the alleged purchase, the charter-party had come to an end by the destruction of the vessel. In addition to this, the steamer did not exist; the circumstance of a sale could not be predicated of it; it had ceased to be the subject of such a contract; the owner then had no property to transfer. There can be no valid sale when the subject of the intended sale has no existence.

Even if this were not all plainly true the Court of Claims has committed error. According to its reasoning the United States became joint owners day by day, and while the petitioner would be paying the defendants' (if owner) portion of the expenses of crew and provisions, and of ordinary repairs, defendants (if owner) would be paying petitioner hire for their own (in part) steamer. This is inconsistent with the terms of the contract and the meaning of the parties, and the premises which give rise to such conclusions must necessarily be false.

The contract gives the right of purchase to the United States on the happening of a future and uncertain event; they are not bound to purchase; they might decline to do so; but the petitioner on the happening of the event could not compel the United States to take the vessel.

The obligation was in its nature indivisible, and could not be executed in part; the happening of the event of the net earnings being equal to $40,000, was an entirety; and the clause makes no mention of fractions, so that the obligation is indivisible by the contract and by its nature.

The contract made by the parties is not to be changed under notions of equity. Such a contract as the court below made for them might have been a better one, perhaps, than the one they made, but it is the province of courts to enforce such contracts as are presented, and not to make new ones.

Mr. G. H. Williams, Attorney-General, contra.

Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Propeller Company v. United States


text: Talk:Propeller Company v. United States

title: Talk:Propeller Company v. United States


text:
Propeller Company v. United States/Opinion of the Court

The agreement between the plaintiffs and the United States was not a mere contract of affreightment. The vessel, it is true, was let to hire for an indefinite period, not less than thirty days, and the charterers undertook to pay $150 for each and every day she might be employed under the contract, and to bear the war risk, the marine risk being borne by the plaintiffs. But, beyond this, the contract looked to a sale of the vessel to the charterers at a stipulated price. Her value was fixed at $40,000, and it was agreed that should she be retained in the service of the United States until the money paid and due on account of the charter should be equal to such value (after deducting therefrom the cost of running and keeping her in repair, together with a percentage on her appraised value), she should become the property of the United States without further payment, except of such sum as might then be due on account of her hire under the charter. Another clause in the agreement stipulated, in effect, that at any time during the continuance of the charter, namely, while the vessel was employed by the charterers, and until she should be returned to the owners at New York, the United States might elect to purchase her, they might take her at her appraised value (viz., $40,000), in which case all money paid and due on account of the charter, after making the deductions above mentioned, it was agreed should be applied on account of the purchase. The plain meaning the these stipulations is that transmission of the ownership of the vessel to the United States was contemplated; that the transmission of ownership was to be at the option of the United States; that in no event were the plaintiffs to have more than $40,000 for her, and that this sum might be paid in full by the per diem hire, in which case the vessel was to become the property of the government so soon as the hire, less the specified deductions, should equal in amount the price named, or at such earlier time as the United States might elect to take her at that price. The plaintiffs, therefore, were in no contingency entitled to more than the price fixed for the vessel by the contract. Whether received as freight or in direct payment of the stipulated price, all money which was paid them, or became due to them, was consideration for the transmission of title, if the United States chose so to regard it. In effect, therefore, the contract vested an equitable ownership in the defendants, proportioned to the money paid and due under the charter. Had a third party, with knowledge of the agreement, bought the vessel from the plaintiffs, he would doubtless have acquired only a right to the purchase-money remaining unpaid at the time of his purchase, if the charterers had afterwards elected to take the vessel during her retention as purchasers, or had retained her until the freight equalled the price agreed upon.

It is true the United States became insurers against war risks, and the vessel was destroyed by such a risk before the freight earned amounted to the appraised value or price. But as insurers they were only bound to make good the loss the plaintiffs sustained, and as the plaintiffs had agreed to sell for $40,000, that loss could not have exceeded what remained unpaid of that sum. It cannot be doubted that the United States had also under the contract an insurable interest. Suppose both they and the plaintiffs had insured severally for their interests, as they might have done, with another underwriter, could more than $40,000, the value of the vessel, have been recovered on both the policies? That will not be maintained. Or, suppose the plaintiffs had insured against marine risks, and the vessel had been lost by one of them. By the contract they undertook such risks. If the vessel had been lost on the day before the freight, less the deductions agreed upon, would have amounted to her entire value, could the plaintiffs have recovered the whole $40,000, and have retained it, together with the $39,850 paid or due for freight? Would not the policy have enured to the benefit of the United States to the extent of the payments made? To hold that it would not would be giving to the contract a most unreasonable construction. And if not, how can the plaintiffs now be entitled to the whole value of the vessel, in addition to all they have received for her hire, as if no part of her price had been paid, or as if the United States had no interest? We think they are not thus entitled. In our opinion the government had an equitable interest in the vessel at the time she was lost, and as the interest of the plaintiffs amounted to no more than $40,000, which sum they have already received, they have no further just claim.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/543

Rh those which I have heard are either attached to the ancient monuments of the country or can be shown to go back to the traditions and beliefs of ancient Egypt. The golden bark of the Sun-god on the sacred lake of Karnak, or the heifer which was believed to ascend from the river once a year at Sharona on the eve of the festival of the Nile-gods are illustrations of the fact. The beliefs and customs of the people equally bear witness to the continuity of habit, and traditions among the inhabitants of the Sa’îd. Near Minia the dead are still ferried over the Nile to be buried on its eastern bank as they were five thousand years ago, and in spite of the fulminations of orthodox Mohammedanism or the Coptic Patriarch, food is still offered to them, and the living, whether Mohammedan or Coptic, hold a three days’ festival once a year over their graves. The fellaḥ may call himself a Christian or a Mohammedan, but at heart he remains a worshipper of Isis and Osiris, or rather of the local deities who were disguised under those names. It will be seen further on that the doctrine of the Ka or “Double” still lingers among the descendants of the subjects of Rameses, and the beliefs connected with the afarît or “spirits” and the mezaiyara or water-witch can be traced to an Old Egyptian source. On the other hand, the belief in the ghûl seems to me to be of Arab origin: it belongs to the desert, not to the cultivated soil.

“A man had two sons. When they grew up, he saw the sons, one was a thief and the other a murderer. He did not know what to do. A neighbour said to him: ‘Send them to school.’ So to school they went, and the one became a lawyer and the other a doctor.”

“A man of our village (Helwân is meant) had a wife who was very niggardly. If her husband or one of his

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/543


text: Talk:Propeller Company v. United States/Opinion of the Court


text:
Willard v. Presbury

APPEAL from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia; the case being this:

An act of Congress, passed February 23d, 1865, provides:

'That the corporation of the city of Washington shall have full power and authority to levy taxes on particular wards, parts, or sections of the city for their particular local improvements, and to cause the curbstones to be set, the foot and carriage-ways (or so much thereof as they may deem best) to be graded and paved.'Another clause in the same act provides:

'That the corporation, &c., is hereby authorized to lay and collect a tax upon all property bordering upon each street or alley that may be paved, sewered, lighted, cleaned, or watered by said corporation, in accordance with the provisions of this act.'

On the 12th October, 1865, the city authorities of Washington passed an ordinance which provided for the grading and paving a certain part of Fourteenth Street (including a part which passes on the east side of the hotel known as Willard's, at the northwest corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Fourteenth Street), with a particular kind of pavement referred to; to replace or reset the curbstones, repair or renew the sidewalks or foot-pavements, &c. And to defray the expenses incurred, the ordinance directed a special tax to be levied under the authority of the above quoted act of Congress of the 23d February, 1865, on all lots and parts of lots along the said Fourteenth Street, the said taxes to be assessed and collected in the same manner as provided by an act of May 23d, 1853.

The street, including that part running along the east side of Willard's Hotel, having been repaved under the ordinance, the city assessed $1835 on the hotel property, of which at this time, Presbury, Sykes & Chadwick were lessees, from the owners, J. C. and H. A. Willard, under a lease which contained a covenant that the lessees should pay all taxes imposed by Congress or the city authorities on the property.

Hereupon, Presbury, Sykes & Chadwick filed their bill in the court below against J. C. Willard, setting forth their lease and the covenant just mentioned, that the portion of Fourteenth Street in front of the premises had been graded and paved, and that the pavement was in good condition and repair; that, notwithstanding this, the common council of the city passed the ordinance already mentioned, directing that Fourteenth Street, including the portion referred to, should be regraded and repaved, although as to this portion it was wholly unnecessary, and had not been called for by the adjacent proprietors of lots; that the ordinance, as originally drafted, omitted this portion, and would have thus been adopted had it not been for the misrepresentations of the defendant, J. C. Willard, and a contract made by him with the mayor and common council in respect to the payment of the expenses; that the defendant, the said Willard, persuaded the authorities to include the portion of the street mentioned, by representing that he and his brothers were the exclusive owners of all the property contiguous to it; that they all desired the work to be done; and that he and they would be required to pay all the assessments, he (the bill alleged), the said Willard, well knowing that the said representations were untrue, and that the said work was not necessary, and was not desired by the adjacent owners; and also, well knowing that, by the covenant in their lease, the complainants, lessees of the hotel, would be required to pay the assessments. The bill further charged that J. C. Willard agreed with the mayor and common council that if they would pass the ordinance requiring the work to be done he would pay the full amount of the expense assessed; that the grading and paving had since been completed, and the assessments made upon the adjacent owners, and the sum of $1835 had been charged upon the property included in the lease, which the said defendant refused to pay, and payment of which he caused to be demanded of them, the complainants. The bill prayed that the common council be enjoined from collecting the assessment, or that it be set aside for irregularity, or, if not, that the defendant, the said Willard, be decreed to pay it.

There were four witnesses examined in the case. Mr. Wallach, who was the mayor at the time the ordinance was passed and the work done, was one. He stated in substance that Willard had an interview with him while the ordinance was pending in the city councils, and expressed great anxiety for its passage; that he made no representation to him while the bill was pending; that after the ordinance was passed, and while the work was in progress, it was not the intention of the witness to regrade and pave the portion of the street to which Willard's hotel was adjacent; that that portion had been paved within a few years with cobble-stones; that the defendant urged him to pave it with the new material; and, as an inducement, said that he had the entire portion of one side to pay for; and that he and his brother owned a larger portion of the property fronting on it than any one person. On the witness suggesting that there might be objections on the part of Mrs. Farnum and Mrs. Burke, the owners of the remaining portion, he said that if they objected he would be responsible for their assessments. The witness stated that he thinks that he would not have had the paving done at that time had it not been for the representations and urgent request of the defendant; that he, the mayor, had full power in the matters given him in the ordinance. The witness also stated there was no agreement between him and the said defendant, that he was to be personally responsible for the assessments or cost of the pavement. Willard gave him to understand that he would have to bear the expense of the pavement in front of his property.

Mr. Owen, an alderman at the time, also a witness, stated

Mr. Chadwick, one of the complainants, was also called as a witness. He stated that before taking the lease he took a full survey of the property and its surroundings; that the pavement of Fourteenth Street in front was in good condition, and when taken up was the best in the city. He received a notice from J. C. & II. A. Willard, the landlords, to take up the pavement of the street and put a new one down, at which he was greatly surprised; and that shortly after, workmen proceeded to take up the old pavement; that he had no knowledge of the ordinance till the work was begun; that the street at the time needed no repair.

Mr. Ball, called as a witness, simply stated, in answer to a question, that the street, at the time the old pavement was taken up, was in the best condition.

The court, upon this evidence, decreed that the defendant, Willard, should be liable personally to pay the assessments levied upon the premises leased to the complainants, directing that, if not paid in ten days, the city authorities should proceed and sell his reversionary interest therein to pay the same. From this decree Wilard appealed.

Messrs. W. D. Davidge and W. F. Mattingly, for the appellant; Messrs. R. T. Merrick and R. J. Brent, contra.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Willard v. Presbury


text: Talk:Willard v. Presbury

title: Talk:Willard v. Presbury


text:
Willard v. Presbury/Opinion of the Court

Some question has been made by the counsel for the appellees as to the power of Congress to confer upon the city authority to assess upon the adjacent proprietors of lots the expense of repairing streets with a new and different pavement or repairing an old one. It is asserted that this should be a general tax on the city. But the power, we think, cannot well be denied. The Constitution confers upon Congress the authority to exercise exclusive legislation over this District. #fn-s-s

The bill seeks to compel Willard to pay the tax levied on the hotel (of which the appellees are lessees, and bound by their covenant to pay the same), upon the ground, 1st. That he procured the passage of the city ordinance to make the improvement in the street by fraudulent misrepresentations to the mayor and common council, with the intent to cast upon the lessees the burden of the tax, and to benefit his own reversionary interest in the premises; and

2d. That he had agreed with the mayor and common council, if they would pass the ordinance requiring the improvements to be made, he would pay the full amount of any assessments or tax for and on account of the expense of the same.

On looking into the proofs in the record it will be seen that this second ground for charging Willard, the appellant, with the expense of the improvements is wholly unsustained. No such agreement was made as alleged in the bill.

And as it respects the first ground, the only evidence in support of it is that, pending the ordinance before the city council, in a conversation with Alderman Owen, he said that he and his brothers would have to pay for most of the work, and that the other property owners along there were fully able to pay their proportions, except as to the Burch property, and if there was any objection as to that he would pay for it himself-that portion of it. The witness said that he knew of no inducements held out by Willard to procure the passage of the ordinance, except as stated above.

Without stopping to inquire whether a misrepresentation simply to one of the aldermen constituting the board, to induce him to pass an ordinance for the improvement of a street, could be regarded as making out a case of misrepresentation that would subject the guilty party to any responsibility for its passage, or whether, if such responsibility was established, the appropriate remedy would not be an action at law, it is sufficient to say, in the present case, that there is no evidence in the record showing that the representations made were untrue, and hence the first ground for subjecting the appellant also fails.

We say nothing as to the representations made to the mayor after the passage of the ordinance and while the work was in progress, or how far these might subject the appellant to liability, as that evidence is not pertinent to the issue made in the bill before us.

DECREE REVERSED and CAUSE REMITTED, with directions to

DISMISS THE BILL. #fn-s-s-s


text: Talk:Willard v. Presbury/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/544

178 friends asked for anything she said she had not got it. If he asked for a piece of bread or a match she beat him with her broom. So the poor man had to hide his bread under his galahîya (upper garment) and eat by stealth. Finally he died. His wife died soon afterwards. Before she died she asked her sons to bury her along with her husband by his side. They did so. The next night the man came to his sons and told them to remove the body. ‘I died,’ he said, ‘in order to escape hell, and now I am in hell again.’”

“There was a man who married a wife of whom he was very fond. But after a while the wife died. Then the man wandered away in order to find a country in which no one died. So he went from place to place, looking for a town where there were no graves. At last he came to a town in the Sudân where there were no graves. So he remained here, in the house of the shêkh. The shêkh made a feast for him, and first offered him a piece of a roasted leg. ‘Where is your father?’ asked the man. ‘This is his leg,’ said the shêkh, ‘the rest of him is up there,’ pointing to a shelf. Then the man learned that when anyone fell ill, he was killed and eaten, and that this was the reason there were no graves. So in the night he ran away back to his own country.”

“There was a man who wanted his mother-in-law to die so that he might inherit her property. She had bad eyes; so he professed to set up as a doctor who could cure disease in the eyes. When his mother-in-law came to consult him, he said it was necessary that she should put certain plasters over her eyes which he would give her. He took some lime (gîr) and laid it upon pieces of cloth, and

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/544


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/545

Rh these he told her to put over the eyes. But when he came to remove them, instead of the eyes being destroyed, he found them cured. For God is more merciful than man.”

“A Turk killed a goose and ordered his cook to prepare it for his dinner. While it was being cooked, a judge came along and asked for whom it was being cooked. The cook said: ‘For the Turk.’ The judge said: ‘I wish to eat it: give it to me.’ But the cook replied: ‘What will the Turk say?’ Said the judge: ‘Don’t trouble: I will see to that.’ Presently the Turk came along and demanded the goose. But the cook said: ‘While it was being cooked, it came to life again and flew away.’ Thereupon the Turk became very angry and wanted to kill the cook. So the cook ran away, with the Turk after him. On the road he met a donkey standing and blocking the way. So he seized the tail of the donkey in order to pull him out of the road, and he pulled so hard that the tail came off in his hand. The owner of the donkey wanted to catch and kill him, and joined the Turk in pursuit. So he ran on till he came to a mosque which he entered, and seeing no other means of escape ran up the minaret to the top and then flung himself over. Under the minaret three blind beggars were sitting. The cook fell on the head of one of them and killed him. So the two other beggars joined in the pursuit, and the cook ran on till he tumbled over Professor (Ma’allim) Mankarios the Copt and accidentally put out his eye. By this time all his pursuers had come up with him; they seized him and brought him before the judge. First of all the owner of the donkey brought his complaint. The judge looked at his book and said: ‘The cook must restore the donkey’s tail; therefore let the owner give him the donkey until the tail is grown again. And now for my fee.’ So the man gave the judge his fee, but preferred to keep the donkey. Next one of the blind men demanded

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/545


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/546

180 justice. So the judge looked again into his book, and said: ‘According to the divine law (sheri’) it is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Therefore one of the blind men must mount the minaret and jump down on the cook who must sit below. And now for my fee.’ The fee was paid, but the blind men refused to ascend the minaret. Next came Professor Mankarios. ‘Come here; you can read,’ said the judge, ‘and see what the divine law says. It is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, is it not?’ ‘ Yes,’ said the Professor. ‘Then,’ said the judge, ‘since one eye of a true believer is equal to the two eyes of a Christian, the cook must first pull out your second eye, and then you will pull out the cook’s eye. And now for my fee.’ The Copt paid the fee and went away. Lastly came the Turk. The judge looked at his book and said: ‘It is written in the Qoran that God the Almighty can raise the dead to life; why then should you deny that He can have given life to the goose?’ So the Turk after paying his fee had to go away without his goose.”

“There was a judge who had a little son, of whom he was very fond. He would never eat unless his son ate with him. When the boy was asleep he used to awake him in order that they might eat together. When the judge went to the court he took ladies with him; they sat with him in the court, and he would ask them what sentence he ought to pronounce. His wife heard of this, and one day when he came to his house and wanted to eat he told her to bring the boy. She said: ‘He is asleep.’ He replied: ‘Go and wake him.’ She said: ‘If you wake him I will throw him into the cistern (kanîfa).’ He went and waked him; thereupon his wife took a brick (tûba) and threw it into the cistern. The judge thought it was

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/546


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/547

Rh the boy and ran out into the street crying that she had killed his son. He ran to the house of her father and said: ‘I will put her in prison, I will have her put to death.’ Then his father-in-law went back with him to his house. There he saw his son, awake and well and playing. He said: ‘What does this mean?’ His wife replied: ‘You were mad (ganânu) and so you were treated as a fool (qalâlu).’”

“There was a peasant from Upper Egypt who came to Cairo to sell his chickens. He sold many and received plenty of money. But he was afraid the people might steal it from him before the rest of his business was finished. So he went to the judge and said to him: ‘Will you take this money and keep it for me until I have finished all my business?’ The judge replied: ‘Very good.’ So he left the money with him until all his business was finished. Then he went to the judge and asked him for his money. ‘Get away from here!’ cried the judge; ‘you pig! what have I to do with the money of a fellaḥ like you?’ And he was driven away from the judge’s house. Then a woman saw him crying and lamenting and beating his hands. So she asked what was the matter. He told her that the judge had taken his money. ‘What will you give me,’ said the woman, ‘if I get it for you?’ ‘On my oath, I will kiss your hand,’ said he. Then she went to the judge with a negress and a box which was locked up. And she said to him: ‘I am going on pilgrimage to the Hijaz and am afraid to leave my things in my house. So I have packed my jewels in this box and wish you to take care of it for me. No one can open it, for I have the key.’ The judge said to her: ‘Very good. I too have some money which I wish to be safe. Will you pack it up also in the box?’ ‘Certainly; give it to me.’ So he gave her the money of the fellaḥ, which she gave to the negress

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/547


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/548

182 to pack up in the box. But there was nothing in the box except a few worthless clothes. The negress gave the money to the fellaḥ, who began to dance for joy. The negress also danced because her mistress had overreached the judge. When the judge saw them dancing, he began to dance too. And the woman asked him: ‘The fellaḥ dances because he has his money, and the negress because she has given it to him; but why do you dance?’ ‘Because you have had a laugh at me,’ he answered.”

“There was a judge who had a daughter. Many suitors wanted to marry her, but he refused them all, for he was afraid that they ate unclean meat (ḥarâm). There was a robber, and when he heard of it he said: ‘I will marry her.’ They asked him: ‘How?’ He answered: ‘You will see.’ After five or six days he went one night to the house of the judge as he was sitting down to eat. The judge asked him to eat. He said: ‘Never! the food is all unclean.’ The judge said: ‘How so?’ He answered: ‘Because it has been bought: no one knows whence it comes.’ The judge said: ‘This is the man for my daughter’; and accordingly they were married. After some time the robber said to the judge: ‘Your daughter is west, but I must be east.’ The judge replied: ‘Very good.’ So the robber went away, leaving his wife behind. He went to his village; there he stole a goat and a sheep and made a feast on the dyke. After a time his wife went to seek him and found him living on the dyke and eating his food there. She asked him why he did not live in a house? He answered: ‘Because I do not wish to eat anything that is unclean.’ So she lived with her

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/548


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Drakenborch, Arnold


text:
Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/144

 the hunted criminal or outlaw, her holidays alone brought rest and freedom to the serf."

In the very midst of town and hamlet stood the parish church—the pride and joy of the people. Gradually the Norman style, already described, had been replaced by the pointed arch of Gothic architecture, and after a period of transition, during which the nave of Durham Cathedral and the choir of Canterbury arose, the Early English style came in, and was first used on a large scale in Lincoln Cathedral, to be replaced in its turn by the Perpendicular. While their homes, judged by our modern standards, were yet bare and comfortless, our ancestors lavished money and thought on the decoration of their church. To adorn and beautify it was a labour of love in which every class of society shared. The poor man gave his toil, the prosperous burgher presented painted glass windows, the successful gilds bestowed altar-cloths, the traveller brought back Eastern silks, the wealthy gave silver chalices, embroidered copes, costly hangings, banners, lamps, shrines; no man died without bequeathing what he could to his parish church. So likewise the local artist carved the seats, local scribes wrote the


text:
Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/145

 and psalters; a sense of personal possession pervaded all classes. To the church the busy trader would wend his way after a day of stir and turmoil, there to listen to the chanting of vespers, or to tell his beads before the image of some favourite saint. Not only did the people keep their church for prayer and meditation, but, if necessary, they stored in it their grain and wool; here councillors met for consultation on local affairs; here, in the long, dim aisles, lay at times the sick and the dying. No line sundered matters of religion from the affairs of daily life: State and Church were blended into one; the people looked to the priests in matters secular as well as in matters spiritual. The education of the children was entirely in the hands of ecclesiastics, for they were the only scholars in the country; they taught the children a little Latin, the rudiments of reading and writing, grammar and deportment One sorrow of childhood was spared the children of the Middle Ages: they had no spelling to learn; phonetic spelling was general; the letters of one word are constantly varied, and we have the word "chancellor" spelt in five different ways in a single deed of Oxford University. Boys and girls were taught together for the most part, but the


text:
Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/143

 CHAPTER X

Fifteenth Century

CHURCH AND PEOPLE

T is impossible to turn from the manners and customs of the Middle Ages without noting the immense influence of the Church on the social life of the people. In her "yet unbroken unity," she "appealed with overpowering force to the imagination of her children. Her ceremonies were associated with every important phase of private life from the cradle to the grave; her cathedrals and parish churches were the only public buildings to which every class had the same rights and opportunities of access … her sanctuaries alone could give passing shelter to 123


text: Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/142


text:
Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/141

 blankets, one pair good sheets, a great pillow and small pillow and feather bed."

With a greater degree of comfort came an exaggerated idea of luxury, which was criticised and preached against as it is to-day. But compared with the nineteenth century the luxury of the Middle Ages is indeed unenviable, and it is impossible to look back with any longing or regrets to the days of our medieval ancestors.


text:
Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/140

 beds, which must have been much more comfortable than in olden times. True, the mattress or matted truss of straw was still used, but the feather bed had been recently imported from France. In an old "Guide to Servants," written in the fifteenth century, the groom of the chamber is told "the feder bed to bete, but no federys waste" On this feather bed was laid the fustian or blanket, over it the linen sheets, which still served the purpose of nightgown, and the bed was covered with a "pane" of ermine or a richly embroidered quilt Beds were handed down from generation to generation as valuable personal property, and it is interesting to remember how, at a later date, Shakspere's will is explicit on the subject of leaving his "second best bed" to his wife, though he says nothing of rights in his plays. One of our forefathers bequeaths his daughter "a feather bed next the best, a mattress lying under the same, three pairs of sheets, two pillows and a pair of blankets," while another, a rich tradesman, leaves to his niece "my green hanged bed, stained with my arms therein, that hangeth in the chamber over kitchen, with the curtains, the green covering belonging thereto; another coverlit, one pair of


text:
Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/139

 shoes came in, known as "duckbills." Leather was now used for boots and shoes, which were often double-soled, a distinct advantage, considering the deep mud of the uncleaned roads. So exaggerated and costly had dress become that in 1463 a petition was presented to Parliament against the "inordinate use of apparell and aray of men and women." The rising power and wealth of the middle classes made the nobles feel that their dignity was at stake when their fashions in dress were copied by the democracy. Laws were passed enforcing the social barrier, as far as dress was concerned. Only a lord and his wife might wear a stomacher worked in gold or sable; only a Knight of the Garter might wear velvet; small squires might not wear damask or satin; yeomen were forbidden to pad their doublets or to wear costly fur, while the labouring classes might not buy cloth above two shillings a yard, and were for the most part restricted to coarse flannel, fustian, and linen girdles.

Linen and woollen stuffs were largely used, and to encourage home manufactures Henry IV. prohibited the importation of foreign cloth. Linen sheets and blankets were used now for


text:
User:TalBot/soft redirect maintenance/July 2010/redirects

 * Letters of James Henry Carleton → Letter recommending removal of the Navajo to Bosque Redondo
 * Persia/Chapter I → Persia/Chapter 1
 * Persia/Chapter II → Persia/Chapter 2
 * Treaty of relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore → Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore
 * Treaty of relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore/Annex A → Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore/Annex A
 * Treaty of relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore/Malay → Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore/Malay
 * Treaty of relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore/amendments → Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore/amendments


text:
Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/138

 ridicule. Some were like steeples, with long streamers hanging down from the top; they were made of rolls upon rolls of linen, towering some two feet above the head and ending in a point, not unlike an extinguisher. Some were like a bishop's mitre, immoderately broad and high, while some fastened two great projecting towers of rolled lawn and ribbon on their heads, which looked like two great horns. Indeed, so extreme and immoderate were the head-dresses that the doors of the Royal palaces had to be made higher and wider to enable the ladies to pass through. The lady of the period must have been sorely hampered and harassed by her costume, though the long trailing skirt was fast passing out of fashion. Men and women were alike adopting the doublet, or short padded jacket, pleated below the waist and fastened with a girdle laced in front across a stomacher of coloured satin, linen, tawny silk, or murrey-coloured taffeta. Enormous hanging sleeves were worn, and it is related that Edward IV. used to tie his behind his back to avoid tumbling over them as he walked. For a time pointed shoes continued to be the fashion, but soon length gave way to breadth and broad


text:
Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/137

 were eaten wild out of the woods, as we gather blackberries to-day.

Let us picture for a moment the garden of this period. There is a square enclosure bounded by walls of stone, brick, or thick-set hedge with two entrances, one opening from the house, the other into an orchard or field. It is very neatly kept and the air is sweet with fragrant herbs: at intervals there are recesses with seats and benches covered with turf, "thick-set and soft as any velvet," past which run little paths covered with sand or gravel, intersecting the garden. Surrounding the arbour are periwinkles, marigolds, lilies, wild geranium, mallow, or cowslips, daffodils, and foxgloves. Here the ladies come to gather flowers to make wreaths and garlands for their heads. We see again Chaucer's "Emilie" wandering in the garden at sunrise, her braided yellow hair hanging down in its long plait below her waist, singing out of the very lightness of her heart as she weaves a garland for her head.

The ladies of the fifteenth century were very much taken up with their head-dresses. These were truly wonderful. They were large, heavy, and ungraceful, and excited much wrath and


text:
Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/136

 mint; for salads, violet flowers, parsley, red mint, cress, primrose buds, daisies, dandelion, and red fennel, to be eaten raw with olive oil and spices; the roots included parsnips, turnips, radishes, "karettes," and saffron. One great ambition of the medieval gardener was to excel in the art of grafting. They grafted vines on cherry-trees, pears on hawthorns, apples on elms. They were thoroughly ingenious, but hopelessly unpractical. "If thou wilt that in the stone of a peach be found a nut-kernal, graft a sprout of a peach-tree on the stock of a nut-tree," suggests an old gardening book; and yet again: "A peach-tree shall bring forth pomegranates if it be sprinkled with goat's milk three days when it beginneth to flower, and the apples of a peach-tree shall wax red if its scion be grafted on a playne-tree."

But if our forefathers neglected the cultivation of vegetables, they encouraged the art of fruit-growing in England. Apples and pears grew in great variety; they had medlars, figs, and cherries, quinces, plums, peaches, gooseberries, and mulberries; cultivated strawberries were yet rare, but they grew to a good size in the famous gardens at Holborn. For the most part they


text:
Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/135

 It is little wonder that the death-rate was high in the Middle Ages, and that the wealthy mostly died under the age of forty, though this was due to many causes besides the enormous consumption of meat and the almost entire absence of vegetable diet.

In the garden of this period grew very few vegetables, for England was behind France, Italy and the Low Countries in this respect. Nevertheless, the garden, hitherto restricted mostly to the monasteries, now began to be a necessary addition to the new half-timbered house that was springing up in town and country. True, there had been pleasure grounds and "pleasaunt playing places" for the ladies of the wealthy long before this—grounds with grottoes and fountains and sweet-smelling herbs; here, too, was the trellised arbour half smothered in rose and honeysuckle, vines and creeping flowers. But the fifteenth-century garden was made mainly for the purpose of supplying and flavouring foods, as well as for medicinal purposes. Thus special flowers were grown for flavouring soups, including sweet violets, corn-marigolds, red nettles, daisies, and columbine; for making sauces, there were sorrel, violets, parsley, and


text:
User:TalBot/soft redirect maintenance/July 2010/references

 * Malaysia Bill (Annex A)
 * User talk:Cygnis insignis


text:
Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/134

 broth; take the whites of leeks and slit them, cut them small and put them in with mixed onions and let it all boil; next take bread steeped in broth and 'draw it up' with blood and vinegar, and put it into a pot with pepper and cloves and let it boil; serve all together." Here, too, is the receipt for "drore," which must have made a most savoury soup: "Take almonds and blanch them and mix them with good meat broth and seethe this in a pot; then mince onions and fry them in fresh 'grease' and put them to the almonds; take small birds and parboil them, and throw them into the pottage with cinnamon and cloves and a little fair grease and boil the whole."

The fifteenth century was famous for its feasts, where the consumption of food was almost incredible. Here are but some items out of a much longer list of orders for a feast in 1466: 300 tuns of ale, 100 tuns of wine, 104 oxen, 6 wild bulls, 1,000 sheep, 304 calves, 304 swine, 400 swans, 2,000 geese, 1,000 capons, 2,000 pigs, 104 peacocks, 204 kids, 2,000 chickens, 4,000 pigeons, 200 pheasants, 500 partridges, 400 woodcocks, 4,000 cold and 1,500 hot venison patties, 4,000 dishes of jelly, 4,000 baked tarts, and 2,000 hot custards, &c.


text: User:TalBot/soft redirect maintenance/July 2010/changes


text:
Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/133

 before you; not to get intoxicated during dinner; not to carry the victuals to your mouth with a knife." Our forefathers still ate with their fingers; though forks, often of silver, had been introduced into England, they were only used for eating pears and fruit or for picking up "soppys."

The art of cooking had developed, and a number of manuscript cookery books throw floods of light on the domestic life of this period. Here is one of the shortest menus for a little medieval dinner—

Each of these items needed elaborate preparation. Here is the receipt for "bruce": "Take the umbles of a swine and parboil them, and cut them small and put them in a pot with some good


text: User:TalBot/soft redirect maintenance/July 2010/exceptions


text:
Page:Haiti- Her History and Her Detractors.djvu/308

The climate of Haiti, though very hot, does not endanger the lives of the foreigners. Persons coming from a cold country who land for the first time in Haiti run no greater risk than those who spend the summer in New York or Washington, where the heat is more oppressive on account of the humidity of the atmosphere. In general the climate of Haiti is dry. It all depends upon the newcomer's mode of living as to whether he will enjoy good or poor health. Many a time diseases have been attributed to the temperature when caused in reality by intemperance or bad hygiene.

The warmest season of the year at Port-au-Prince begins about May. That which makes the tropical climate so trying is owing more to the continuous heat than to the intensity of it, the thermometer registering on an average 90° Fahrenheit during the month of August. During the daytime sea breezes moderate the heat, the nights being made quite pleasant by the land breeze. A very agreeable temperature can be obtained in the delightful hills which surround Port-au-Prince


text: Index:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu


text:
Page:Haiti- Her History and Her Detractors.djvu/309

 Rh and are dotted here and there by country residences. Here the temperature at night is considerably cooler than in the city, and the absence of mosquitoes constitutes one of its greatest charms. Heavy rains cleanse and cool the atmosphere. The climate of Haiti has long been known for its healthiness. Moreau de St. Méry has said the following about it: "The great diversity of the climate and temperature of the island is owing to its configuration of alternate lofty mountains and deep valleys. This diversity is due chiefly to the situation of the island in the region of the trade-winds; Saint-Domingue is exposed in all its length to the east winds, which, entering into the spaces between the mountain-ranges, form channels of air which serve to cool the temperature of these mountains, an advantage not enjoyed by the plains, where the mountains sometimes deviate the winds. Apart from these causes many local circumstances, such as the altitude of the land, the quantity of water which irrigates it, the scarcity or the abundance of forests, affect the climate greatly.

"If a powerful cause did not counteract the effect of the heat of the sun, which is always intense in the torrid zone, and whose beams during three months of the year fall at right angle on Saint-Domingue, the temperature of this island would be unbearable to man. … That which causes this counteracting effect is the wind to which allusion has just been made and whose healthful coolness tempers the heat of the sun. To this can be added the influence of the equality in duration between days and nights and also the influence of the abundant rains which water profusely the surface of the island and have a cooling effect on the air through evaporation caused by the heat. … The difference between the two seasons (summer and winter) is more distinguishable in the mountains than in the cities. In the mountains the temperature is a


text:
Author:Walter Perceval Yetts

Works

 * Catalogue of the Chinese & Corean bronzes, sculpture, jades, jewellery and miscellaneous objects: The George Eumorfopoulos Collection. London: Benn, 1929–1932
 * Vol. 1 Bronzes: Ritual and other vessels, weapons, etc.
 * Vol. 2 Bronzes: Bells, drums, mirrors, etc.
 * (with A. C. Moule) The Rulers Of China 221 B.C. – A.D. 1949 Chronological Tables Compiled By A. C. Moule. With a Section on the Earlier Dynasties by W. Perceval Yetts. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1957 ("Yetts provides information of the rulers of China from 2100-249BC.")
 * (with A. C. Moule) The Rulers Of China 221 B.C. – A.D. 1949 Chronological Tables Compiled By A. C. Moule. With a Section on the Earlier Dynasties by W. Perceval Yetts. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1957 ("Yetts provides information of the rulers of China from 2100-249BC.")

title: Author:Walter Perceval Yetts


text:
Page:Haiti- Her History and Her Detractors.djvu/310

 274 milder, there is neither that oppressive heat nor those strong breezes which dry up the air instead of cooling and freshening it. For this reason life in the mountains is more pleasant than in the plains. … the mountains the thermometer seldom rises above 18 or 20 degrees centigrade, whilst in the plains and in the towns it registers on an average as high as 30 degrees. The nights are sometimes cool enough to necessitate the use of a blanket; in some of the mountains of Saint-Domingue it is often necessary to build a fire. This is not owing to the intensity of the cold, the temperature being only 12 or 14 degrees centigrade, but on account of the contrast of this temperature with that felt during the day and which produces a sensation that is not rightly expressed by the words cold and hot as they are generally understood in a cold country."

All that Moreau de St. Méry wrote about the climate of Haiti is still true of it. Nevertheless, in their frenzy of misrepresentation the detractors of Haiti spare not even her climate; they make it out to be a menace to the life of foreigners. As a matter of fact, these detractors generally know little or nothing of Haiti; after a stay of a few hours or a day or two in one of the cities or towns they take upon themselves to speak ex cathedra about the country, its inhabitants, customs, etc.

Besides the numerous residences in the suburbs of Port-au-Prince, at Turgeau, Peu-de-Chose, etc., which, nestling in their picturesque setting of green, offer a pleasant change from the heat of the city, there can be found in the surrounding mountains several places cool enough to bear comparison with many of the summer resorts in the United States. Pétionville or La Coupe, at an altitude of 500 metres above the sea level, is scarcely an hour's drive from Port-au-Prince; the nights there are always cool and pleasant. Beyond Pétionville, at a distance of 17 kilometres from the capital, is


text: Haiti: Her History and Her Detractors/Part II: Chapter II


text: Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/697


text: Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/698


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/749

STATES WITH AN EXCESS OF FEMALES IN THEIR CITIES IN 1890.


text: Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/750


text: Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/1


text: Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/2


text: Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/3


text: Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/4


text: Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/5


text: Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/6


text: Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/8


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/10

 First reprinting, 1959, Johnson Reprint Corporation


text:
Author:Charles Richmond Henderson

Works

 * The Development of Doctrine in the Epistles (1894)
 * The Social Spirit in America (1896)
 * Social Settlements (1897)
 * Social Elements (1898)
 * An Introduction to the Study of the Dependent, Defective, and Delinquent Classes (1898; second edition, enlarged, 1901)
 * Modern Prison Systems (57th Congress, 2d Session, House Document No. 452, 1903)
 * Modern Methods of Charity (1904)
 * Industrial Insurance in the United States (1907)
 * Social Duties from a Christian Point of View (1909)
 * Education in Relation to Sex (1909)
 * Social Programmes of the West (1913)

title: Author:Charles Richmond Henderson


text:
Author:Shailer Mathews

Works

 * The Social Teachings of Jesus, 1897
 * A History of New Testament Times in Palestine, 1899
 * The French Revolution, 1900
 * The Messianic Hope in the New Testament, 1905
 * The Church and the Changing Order, 1907
 * The Social Gospel, 1909
 * The Gospel and the modern Man, 1910
 * The Social Teaching of Jesus, 1910
 * Scientific Management in Churches, 1911
 * The Individual and the Social Gospel, 1914
 * The Spiritual Interpretation of History, 1916
 * Patriotism and Religion, 1918
 * The Validity of American Ideals, 1922
 * The Faith of Modernism, 1924
 * Jesus on Social Institutions, 1928
 * The Atonement and the Social Process, 1930
 * The Growth of the Idea of God, 1931
 * Immortality and the Cosmic Process, 1933
 * Christianity and Social Process, 1934
 * Creative Christianity, 1935
 * New Faith for Old: An Autobiography, 1936
 * The Church and the Christian, 1938
 * Is God Emeritus? 1940

 * Christian Sociology

title: Author:Shailer Mathews


text:
Author:James Hayden Tufts

Works

 * James Tufts: A Memorial (1902) external link
 * Ethics with John Dewey (1908)
 * The Ethics of the Family (1915) external link
 * America's Social Morality (1933)
 * America's Social Morality (1933)

title: Author:James Hayden Tufts


text:
Page:Lectures on Modern History.djvu/308

 impregnable by sea. It was free from traditions and reactionary memories, looking only to the future and the new things that the commerce with the world would bring; a gate for the inflow of the forces by which its founder would transform the nation. As part of the same transformation the Tsar of Muscovy became Emperor of Russia. It was a claim to the Byzantine inheritance, and a menace to the Austrian successor of the Western Empire. This was faint and distant; and Peter remained on friendly terms with Vienna. But the title was coldly received by Europe, and was not finally recognised until forty years after his death.

The persuasions by which Peter bent Russia to his will were base and atrocious; for, although one of the greatest men that have influenced the course of Christian history, he is undoubtedly the worst of them; but he was not working for himself; at Pultawa he told his troops that they were fighting for Russia, not for him. His motive was impersonal. He had grasped a great ideal, and he served it with devotion, sacrificing everything to it, and not sparing himself. The absolute State was the ideal, or rather the idol, for which he toiled, the State as it had been devised by Machiavelli and Hobbes. To raise the country by the employment of its own internal forces was an unpromising and unprofitable enterprise. He, who was himself a barbarian, could only accomplish his purpose by means of aid from outside, by the instrumentality of those who had experience of a more advanced order of things. The borrowed forces could only be applied by the powers of despot. That power, moreover, was already provided. Muscovy had never been governed otherwise than by irresponsible and irresistible authority. That authority had been inactive and not deeply felt. Now the same authority interfered to alter almost everything, except the subjection of the serf to the landowner.

To enforce the supremacy of the State over society, and of will over custom, Peter introduced his most characteristic institution. He made precedence depend on public service, and regulated it according to rank in the army


text:
Author:Carroll Davidson Wright

Works

 * The Factory System of the United States (1880)
 * Relation of Political Economy to the Labor Question (1882)
 * History of Wages and Prices in Massachusetts, 1752-1883 (1885)
 * The Industrial Evolution of the United States (1887)
 * Outline of Practical Sociology (1899)
 * Battles of Labor (1906)

Contributions to EB1911

 * (United States)
 * (United States)
 * (United States)
 * (United States)
 * (United States)

title: Author:Carroll Davidson Wright


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/10

 Together they urged that the reformation of the church should be immediately dealt with. Sigismund and the German nation emphasised the English demand. But the cardinals declared that the next work of the council should be the papal election. On 4 Sept. Hallam died. The cardinals chose this moment to bring forward on 9 and 11 Sept. protests urging a papal election (ib. i. 921). The English party, for some unexplained reason, suddenly changed its front, deserted Sigismund, and appointed deputies to confer with the cardinals on the manner of election (ib. iv. 1426). Henry V himself seems to have been content with the change of policy of September 1417, and to have consented to [q. v.] (afterwards cardinal) visiting Constance to strengthen the diplomatic compromise which Wakering and his allies had established. Wakering was one of the English deputies for the conclave (ib. iv. 1474) which on 11 Nov. 1417, St. Martin's day, elected Oddo Colonna pope. Lassitude now settled down on the council, and some of its leading members returned home. Before leaving Constance, Wakering obtained from Martin that papal ratification to his appointment which had been so long delayed (Anglia Sacra, i. 417). He was back in England before 26 March 1418, when he held an ordination at Norwich. It was his first appearance in his diocese.

Wakering mercilessly sought out lollards throughout his diocese, though in no case was a heretic actually put to death (, Actes and Monuments, bk. vi.). In the nine years of Wakering's episcopate 489 deacons and 504 priests were ordained in the diocese, most of them, however, by his suffragans, for Wakering was chiefly non-resident, being first in Constance and, after 1422, much in London. Appropriation of church property by the religious houses had been stopped by statutes of the previous reign, but that this had already been rife in the diocese of Norwich is clear from Wakering's report to the exchequer in 1424, which states that sixty-five benefices in his diocese had been despoiled for the benefit of ‘poor nuns and hospitallers’ alone. He put Wymondham under an interdict because the bells were not rung in his honour when he visited the town (, iii. 301). He completed a fine cloister, paved with coloured tiles, leading from his palace to the cathedral, and a chapter-house adjoining (, De Præsul. Angl. pp. 438, 439). Both are now destroyed. He presented his cathedral with many jewels, and was famous for generosity (cf., Anglia Sacra, i. 417).

Wakering, however, was soon summoned to matters outside his bishopric. On 3 Nov. 1422 he accompanied the funeral cortège of Henry V from Dover to London (Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, iii. 5). On 5 Nov. he was present at a royal council on the day before the meeting of parliament (ib. iii. 6). In the parliament of 9 Nov. Wakering was appointed one of the seventeen lords who were to undertake ‘the maintenance of law and the keeping of the peace’ (ib.) During 1422 and 1423 he was frequently a trier of petitions (Rot. Parl. iv. 170, 198 a). On 20 Oct. 1423 he was an assistant councillor of the protectorate and a member of the king's council (ib. 1756, p. 201 a). His routine work as member of council kept him busily engaged in London (Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, iii. 69, 74–7, 118, 137, 143, 144, 146, 147, 149–52, 165, 166). On 3 March 1425 Wakering offered the king ‘in his necessities’ the sum of five hundred marks (ib. pp. 167, 168). He died on 9 April 1425 at his manor of Thorpe (, Fasti, ii. 466). He was buried in his own cathedral on the south side of the steps before the altar of St. George. He established in the cathedral a perpetual chantry of one monk (, Anglia Sacra, i. 417;, Norfolk, ii. 376). The long stone seat, with a panelled seat and small figures, now at the back of the choir, opposite the Beauchamp chapel, was part of Wakering's monument, which was shattered during the civil war. His will, which was dated 29 March 1425, was proved on 28 April.

WAKLEY, THOMAS (1795–1862), reformer, born at Membury in Devonshire on 11 July 1795, was the youngest son of Henry Wakley (1750–1842) of Membury. He was educated at the grammar schools of Chard and Honiton, and at Wiveliscombe in Somerset. When fifteen years of age he was apprenticed to a Taunton apothecary named


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/11

. He was afterwards transferred to his brother-in-law, Phelps, a surgeon of Beaminster, as a pupil, and from him passed to Coulson at Henley-on-Thames. In 1815 he proceeded to London to study at the united schools of St. Thomas's and Guy's, known as the Borough Hospitals. The greater part of his medical knowledge was gained, however, at the private school of anatomy in Webb Street, founded by [q. v.], who was assisted by his brother, [q. v.] In October 1817 he qualified for membership of the Royal College of Surgeons, and in the following year went into private practice in the city, taking up his residence in Gerard's Hall. In 1819, with the assistance of Joseph Goodchild, a governor of St. Thomas's Hospital, to whose daughter he was engaged, he purchased a practice at the top of Regent Street. About six months after his marriage, on 27 Aug. 1820, he was murderously assaulted by several men and his house burnt to the ground. The authors of these outrages were never traced, but by some it was conjectured that they were members of Thistlewood's gang, an unfounded rumour having gone abroad that Wakley was the masked man in the disguise of a sailor who was present at the execution of Thistlewood and his companions on 1 May 1820, and who decapitated the dead bodies in accordance with the sentence. Wakley had furnished his house handsomely and insured his belongings, but the Hope Fire Assurance Company refused payment, alleging that he had destroyed his own house. The matter was brought before the king's bench on 21 June 1821, when Wakley was awarded the full amount of his claim with costs. He found that his practice, however, had totally disappeared during the nine or ten months of enforced inaction that followed his wounds, and two years later he settled in practice at the north-east corner of Norfolk Street, Strand. Although the charge of incendiarism was impossible, it was several times revived by ungenerous opponents in the course of his controversies, and on 21 June 1826 Wakley obtained 100l. damages from (1777–1845) [q. v.] for a libel in the ‘Medico-Chirurgical Journal,’ in which, with more malice than wit, he compared him to Lucifer.

During this period of his life Wakley made the acquaintance of [q. v.], who also believed himself destined to be a victim of the Thistlewood gang. Under Cobbett's radical influence he became more keenly alive to the nepotism and jobbery prevalent among leading surgeons. In 1823 he founded the ‘Lancet,’ with the primary object of disseminating recent medical information, hitherto too much regarded as the exclusive property of members of the London hospitals, and also with a view to exposing the family intrigues that influenced the appointments in the metropolitan hospitals and medical corporations. For the first ten years of its existence the ‘Lancet’ provoked a succession of fierce encounters between the editor and the members of the privileged classes in medicine. In the first number, which appeared on 5 Oct., Wakley made a daring departure in commencing a series of shorthand reports of hospital lectures. These reports were obnoxious to the lecturers, who feared that such publicity might diminish their gains and expose their shortcomings. On 10 Dec. 1824 (1764–1831) [q. v.], the senior surgeon of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, applied to the court of chancery for an injunction to restrain the ‘Lancet’ from publishing his lectures. The injunction was refused by Lord Eldon, on the ground that official lectures in a public place for the public good had no copyright vested in them. On 10 June 1825, however, a second application was granted, on the plea that lectures could not be published for profit by a pupil who paid only to hear them. The injunction was, however, dissolved on 28 Nov., because hospital lectures were delivered in a public capacity and were therefore public property. After this decision the heads of the medical profession decided to admit the right of the medical public to peruse their lectures, a right which the greatest of them, Sir [q. v.], had already tacitly allowed by promising to make no attempt to hinder the publication of his lectures, on condition that his name was omitted in the report.

On 9 Nov. 1823 Wakley commenced in the ‘Lancet’ a regular series of ‘Hospital Reports,’ containing particulars of notable operations in the London hospitals. The irritation produced by these reports, and by some remarks on nepotism at St. Thomas's, led to the order for his exclusion from the hospital on 22 May 1824, an order to which, however, he paid no regard. About 1825 he commenced making severe reflections on cases of malpraxis in the hospitals, which culminated on 29 March 1828 in a description of a terribly bungling operation of lithotomy by Bransby Blake Cooper, surgeon at Guy's Hospital, and nephew of Sir Astley Paston Cooper, in which it was plainly asserted that Bransby Cooper was ‘surgeon because he was nephew.’ Cooper sued Wakley for libel, and obtained a verdict, but with damages so small as practically to establish Wakley's main contention of malpraxis.


text:
Author:René Worms

Works

 * De la volonté unilatérale considérée comme source de l'obligation (1891)
 * La Morale de Spinoza (1892)
 * De natura et methodo sociologiae (1896)
 * La Science et l'art en économie politique (1896)
 * Organisme et société (1896)
 * Philosophie des sciences sociales (3 vol., 1903-1907)
 * Études d'économie et de législation rurales (1906)
 * Les Principes biologiques de l'évolution sociale (1910)
 * Précis de philosophie (4. édition, 1911)

title: Author:René Worms


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/12

 Wakley's expenses were defrayed by public subscription.

These were not the only lawsuits in which Wakley was involved as editor of the ‘Lancet.’ On 25 Feb. 1825 Frederick Tyrrell [q. v.] obtained 50l. damages in an action for libel arising out of the ‘Lancet's’ review of his edition of Cooper's ‘Lectures,’ and somewhat later Roderick Macleod [q. v.] obtained 5l. damages for reflections in the ‘Lancet’ on his conduct as editor of the ‘London Medical and Physical Journal.’

In 1836 the ‘Lancet,’ which was at first published from Bolt Court by Gilbert Linney Hutchinson, was removed to offices in Essex Street, Strand, Wakley acting in reality as his own publisher. Six years later John Churchill undertook the responsibility from his own place of business in Prince's Street, Leicester Square. In 1847 Wakley again became his own publisher, and removed the ‘Lancet’ to its present offices at 423 Strand.

While Wakley was attacking hospital administration he was also carrying on a campaign against the Royal College of Surgeons. The contest arose out of the hospital controversy. In March 1824 the court of examiners issued a by-law making it compulsory for medical students to attend the lectures of the hospital surgeons, unless they obtained certificates from the professors of anatomy and surgery in the university of Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, or Aberdeen. Wakley, who remembered his own studies under Edward and Richard Grainger, censured the regulation because it excluded many of the best anatomists from teaching to the evident disadvantage of the students. On inquiry he found that the court of examiners, which was self-elected, was entirely recruited from the hospital surgeons. Seeing the hopelessness of redress from such a body, he shifted his ground and boldly assailed the constitution of the college. The college had been reconstituted by royal charter in March 1800 on an oligarchic basis, after an attempt to procure a similar constitution by act of parliament had been defeated in the House of Lords by a general petition of the ordinary members presented by Lord Thurlow. At the present crisis Wakley advised that the whole body of surgeons should again petition parliament, requesting it to abrogate the existing charter and grant a new one, in which it should be a fundamental principle that any official vested with power to make by-laws should be appointed by the suffrage of all the members of the college. Supported by James Wardrop [q. v.], surgeon to George IV, Wakley commenced an agitation against the governing body of the college, which received large support, especially from country surgeons. Vigorous protests against various abuses from correspondents in all parts of England appeared in the ‘Lancet,’ and on 18 Feb. 1826 the first public meeting of members of the college was convened by Wakley at the Freemasons' Tavern. The meeting were about to draw up a remonstrance to the council of the college, when Wakley, telling them that they ‘might as well remonstrate with the devil as with this constitutionally rotten concern,’ prevailed on them in an impassioned speech to petition parliament at once to abrogate the charter. The petition was presented in parliament by Henry Warburton [q. v.] on 20 June 1827, and the House of Commons ordered a return to be made of public money lent or granted to the college. The victory, however, proved barren, the influence of the council being too strong with government to prevent further steps being taken. Wakley's own relations with the governing body did not improve, and early in 1831, while protesting against a slight put upon naval surgeons by an order of the admiralty, he was ejected from the college theatre by a detachment of Bow Street officers, acting on the orders of the council. In 1843 a partial reform in the constitution of the college was effected by the abolition of the self-electing council and the creation of fellows with no limit of number, to whom the electoral privileges were confided. Wakley, however, denounced this compromise as creating an invidious distinction within the ranks of the profession, and his view is largely justified by the state of feeling at the present day.

Finding himself thwarted in his efforts by the coldness of politicians, he resolved himself to enter parliament. He removed from Norfolk Street about 1825 to Thistle Grove (now Drayton Gardens), South Kensington, and in 1828 to 35 Bedford Square. He first made himself known in Finsbury by supporting the reduction of the local rates. In 1832 and 1834 he unsuccessfully contested the borough, but on 10 Jan. 1835 he was returned. He made a great impression in the House of Commons by a speech delivered on 25 June 1835 on behalf of six Dorset labourers sentenced to fourteen years' transportation under the law of conspiracy for combining to resist the reduction of their wages. The effect produced by his speech eventually led to their pardon. He soon gained the respect of the house as an authority on medical matters, and was able by his forcible eloquence to command attention also on general topics. In 1836 he successfully introduced the medical witnesses bill, providing for the proper


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/13

 remuneration of medical men called to assist at post-mortem examinations. In 1840 he succeeded in preventing the post of public vaccinators being confined to poor-law medical officers alone by obtaining a modification of the wording of Sir James Graham's vaccination bill. In 1841 he strongly supported the extramural burial bill [see ]. In 1846 he brought in a bill to establish a uniform system of registration of qualified medical practitioners in Great Britain and Ireland. Though the bill did not pass, it led to the thorough sifting of the question before a select committee, whose deliberations resulted in the Medical Act of 1858, in which Wakley's registration clauses were adopted almost entire. Wakley did not, however, entirely approve of that act, holding that there should be more direct representation of the body of the profession in the medical council instituted by the act. Among other important parliamentary work, he obtained the material reduction of the newspaper stamp duties in 1836. He was an ardent reformer with strong sympathies with the chartists, an advocate for the repeal of the Irish union, a strenuous opponent of the corn laws, and an enemy to lawyers. He retired from parliament in 1852, finding that the pressure of work left him no leisure for his duties. On the foundation of ‘Punch’ in 1841 Wakley's parliamentary action became a favourite theme of satire, and he was constantly represented in the pages of the new journal. His assertion in speaking against the copyright act in 1842 that he could write ‘respectable’ poetry by the mile was singled out for special ridicule, and received a genial reproof from Tom Hood in his ‘Whimsicalities’ (London, 1844).

In 1851 he commenced in the ‘Lancet’ a most useful movement by issuing the results of analyses of food-stuffs in general consumption by the nation. The inquiry, conducted under the title ‘The “Lancet” Analytical Sanitary Commission,’ was an uncompromising attack on the prevalent adulteration and sophistication of food. The investigation, commencing in London, was carried in 1857 into several of the great provincial towns. It immediately caused considerable diminution in adulteration, and in 1855 a parliamentary committee was appointed to consider the subject. The result of the inquiry was the adulteration act of 1860, known as Scholefield's Act [see ], which rendered penal adulterations which affected the health of consumers. Wakley was only moderately satisfied with the act, which did not deal with the fraudulent aspect of adulteration, and which left the appointment of analysts to the option of the local authorities. The former defect was amended in the Sale of Foods and Drugs Acts of 1875 and 1879.

Wakley is perhaps better known to memory as coroner for West Middlesex than as radical politician or medical reformer. He held the opinion that the duties of corner required a medical rather than legal education. He supported his views in the ‘Lancet’ by numerous examples drawn from contemporary inquests, and on 24 Aug. 1830 presented himself to a meeting of freeholders at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, Strand, as the first medical candidate for the post of coroner of East Middlesex. He was narrowly defeated at the poll, but on 25 Feb. 1839 he was elected coroner for West Middlesex. His efforts to raise the status of coroner's juries and establish a decorous mode of procedure at inquests aroused considerable dislike, and he was accused of holding too frequent inquests, especial objection being taken to his holding inquests on those who died in prisons, asylums, and almshouses. On 10 Oct. 1839 the Middlesex magistrates refused to pass the coroner's accounts, but a committee from their body, appointed to investigate the charges, completely justified Wakley's procedure. His position was finally established on 27 July 1840 by the favourable report of a parliamentary committee appointed to inquire into these and subsequent points of dispute. The numerous instances of practical sagacity and of professional skill which Wakley gave in conducting inquests gradually won popular opinion completely to his side. His humanity gained enthusiastic praise from Dickens, who was summoned to serve on a jury in 1841. The most conspicuous example of his power was in 1846 in the case of Frederick John White. In the face of the testimony of army medical officers, the jury, instructed by independent medical witnesses, returned a verdict that the deceased, a private soldier, died from the effects of a flogging to which he had been sentenced. Their verdict produced such an impression that this method of military punishment fell almost at once into comparative disuse, and was almost unknown when formally abolished by the Army Act of 1881.

Wakley acquired some fame as an exposer of charlatans. It was chiefly through his action that [q. v.] was brought to justice in 1830. In the same year, on 4 Feb., he discredited Chabert, the ‘Fire King,’ in the Argyll Rooms, and on 16 Aug. 1838 he conclusively showed at a séance held at his house in Bedford Square that [q. v.], the senior


text:
Author:Walter Francis Willcox

Works

 * Studies in American Demography (1940)

title: Author:Walter Francis Willcox


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/14

 physician of University College Hospital, a believer in mesmerism, had been duped in his experiments by two hysterical girls. His remonstrances concerning the unfair treatment of medical referees by assurance companies led to the establishment in 1851 of the New Equitable Life Assurance Company, and to a great improvement in the conduct of assurance agencies in general. At the time of his death he projected an inquiry into the working of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, which he thoroughly detested. The inquiry, however, did not take place until three years later.

Wakley died at Madeira on 16 May 1862, and was buried on 14 June at Kensal Green cemetery. On 5 Feb. 1820 he married the youngest daughter of Joseph Goodchild, a merchant of Tooley Street, London. She died in 1857, leaving three sons. The eldest son, Thomas Henry Wakley, senior proprietor of the ‘Lancet,’ born 20 March 1821, died 6 April 1907. The youngest, James Goodchild, succeeded his father as editor of the ‘Lancet.’ On his death in 1886 his brother Thomas Henry and his son Thomas became co-editors.

The interests of Wakley's life were various, but the motives governing his action were always the same. He hated injustice, especially when he found it in alliance with power. Athletic in bodily habit, he possessed a mind no less fitted for successful strife. Though he aroused strenuous opposition and bitter ill will among his contemporaries, time has proved his contentions in every instance of importance to be just. Some of the abuses he denounced are still in existence, but their harmfulness is acknowledged; the greater number have been swept away, chiefly through his vigorous action. He was not accustomed to handle an opponent gently, and many passages in his earlier diatribes are almost scurrilous. But no feeling of personal malice entered into his controversies; he spoke or wrote solely with a view to portraying clearly injustice or wrongdoing, and never with the purpose of paining or humiliating an enemy. Many who opposed him on particular questions became afterwards friends and supporters. A bust of Wakley by John Bell stands in the hall of the ‘Lancet’ office. A portrait, painted by K. Meadows, has been engraved by W. H. Egleton.

WALBRAN, JOHN RICHARD (1817–1869), Yorkshire antiquary, son of John and Elizabeth Walbran, was born at Ripon, Yorkshire, on 24 Dec. 1817, and educated at Whixley in the same county. After leaving school he became assistant to his father, an iron merchant, and afterwards engaged in commerce on his own account as a wine merchant. From his early years he had a marked taste for historical and antiquarian studies, and all the time that he could spare from his avocation was occupied with archæological investigations, especially with respect to the ecclesiastical and feudal history of his native county. His study of the records of Fountains Abbey led him to make a speciality of the history of the whole Cistercian order. A paper by him ‘On the Necessity of clearing out the Conventual Church of Fountains,’ written in 1846, originated the excavations at Fountains Abbey, which were carried out under his personal direction. The first edition of his ‘Guide to Ripon’ was printed in 1844, and was succeeded by nine other editions in his life-time. His chief work, ‘The Memorials of the Abbey of St. Mary of Fountains’ (Surtees Soc. 1864–78, 2 vols.), was left unfinished. Another uncompleted work was his ‘History of Gainford, Durham,’ 1851. He also made some progress with a ‘History of the Wapentake of Claro and the Liberty of Ripon,’ and a ‘History of the Parish of Halifax.’ Although he had great literary ability, he had a singular dislike to the mechanical part of authorship—that connected with printing—and had it not been for the encouragement and technical assistance of his friend William Harrison, printer, of Ripon, few of his writings would have been printed.

Walbran was elected F.S.A. on 12 Jan. 1854, and in 1856 and 1857 filled the office of mayor of Ripon. In April 1868 he was struck with paralysis, and died on 7 April 1869. He was buried in Holy Trinity churchyard, Ripon.

He married, in September 1849, Jane, daughter of Richard Nicholson of Ripon, and left two sons, the elder of whom, Francis Marmaduke Walbran of Leeds, is the author of works on angling. Among Walbran's minor printed works are the following:
 * 1) ‘Genealogical Account of the Lords of Studley Royal,’ 1841; reprinted, with additions, by Canon Raine in vol. ii. of ‘Memo


text:
Author:Amos Griswold Warner

Works

 * Charities. The relation of the state, the city, and the individual to modern philanthropic work (1889) external link
 * Evolution of charities and charitable institutions (1893) external link
 * American Charities. A Study in Philanthropy and Economics. (1894) external link
 * Three phases of coöperation in the West (1888) external link

title: Author:Amos Griswold Warner


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/15

 :: rials of Fountains.’ His manuscripts were after his death purchased by Edward Akroyd of Halifax, and presented by him to York Cathedral Library.
 * 1) ‘A Summer's Day at Bolton Abbey,’ 1847.
 * 2) ‘Visitors' Guide to Redcar,’ 1848.
 * 3) ‘On the Oath taken by Members of the Parliaments of Scotland from 1641,’ 1854.
 * 4) ‘Notes on the Manuscripts at Ripley Castle,’ 1864.

 WALBURGA or WALPURGA (d. 779?), saint, abbess of Heidenheim, was the sister of [q. v.] and Wynnebald. Their legend calls them the children of a certain Richard, but the name is an impossible one. [q. v.] wrote from Germany, asking that the two nuns Lioba and Walburga might be sent to him (Mon. Mogunt. ed. Jaffé, p. 490), and it is therefore supposed that Walburga was with Lioba at Wimborne, and that she went with her to Germany in 752. Legend, no doubt wrongly, makes Walburga accompany her brothers to Italy in 721. She was present at the death of her brother Wynnebald in 761 at Heidenheim (, Mon. Ger. Scriptt. xv. 80), and was made abbess of that double monastery. She was living in or after 778, when an anonymous nun wrote lives of her brothers. These lives have been wrongly ascribed to Walburga herself, because the authoress was, like her, of English birth, a relative of the brothers, and a nun of Heidenheim. The writer refers to Walburga as one of her sources of information.

 WALCHER (d. 1080), bishop of Durham, was a native of Lorraine, of noble birth, who became a secular priest, and one of the clergy of the church of Liège. In 1071 he was appointed by the Conqueror to succeed Æthelwine as bishop of Durham, and was consecrated at Winchester by Thomas, archbishop of York. As he was being led up the church for consecration, Queen or Eadgyth (d. 1075) [q. v.], the widow of the Confessor, thinking of the lawlessness of the people of the north, and struck by his aspect—for he was very tall, and had snow-white hair and a ruddy complexion—is said to have prophesied his martyrdom. By the king's command he was conducted by, earl of Northumberland [q. v.], from York to Durham, where he was installed on 3 April. The Conqueror visited Durham in 1072, and, according to a legend, determined to ascertain whether St. Cuthbert's body really lay there; but while Walcher was celebrating mass before him and his court on 1 Nov. a sudden heat fell upon him, and he left the church in haste. With [q. v.], who succeeded Gospatric in that year, Walcher was on friendly terms, finding him ready to carry out every disciplinary measure that the bishop desired to have enforced in his diocese. His church was in the hands of secular clerks, who had little that was clerical about them either in dress or life; they were fathers of families, and transmitted their positions in the church to their sons. One trace only existed of their connection with the earlier guardians of St. Cuthbert's relics: they used the Benedictine offices at the canonical hours. Walcher put an end to this, and, as they were seculars, made them use the same offices as other clerks. Nevertheless, secular as he was, he greatly preferred the monastic to the clerical life, is said to have thought of becoming a monk, designed to make the clergy of his church monastic, and laid the foundations of, and began to raise, monastic buildings adjacent to it, but was prevented by death from going further. He actively promoted the restoration of monasticism in the north which was set on foot by Ealdwine or Aldwin, prior of Winchcombe. Aldwin, moved by reading of the many monasteries that in old time existed in Northumbria, was eager to revive them, and, in company with two brethren from Evesham, settled first at Munecaceastre (Monkschester or Muncaster), the present Newcastle. Walcher invited them to come to him, and gave them the ruined monastery at Jarrow, where they repaired the church, and, being joined by others, raised monastic buildings. Delighted with their work, Walcher gave the new convent the lordship