text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/346

  Book of Leinster in the Tripartite Life of St. Patrick, ii. 520 (Rolls Ser.); Saxonis Grammatici Gesta Danorum, lib. ix. 312–13, ed. A. Holder; Langebek's Rer. Dan. Script. i. 267, 496, 507, 518, &c.; Torfæus's Ser. Reg. Dan. pp. 388 seq.; Skene's Celtic Scotland, ii. 314–15; Robertson's Early Kings of Scotland, i. 40, 43, 56; Lappenberg's England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, pp. 30 seq., transl. Thorpe; Green's Conquest of England, pp. 66, 74 seq.]  THURKILL or THORKILL (fl. 1009), Danish invader, is said to have come to England to avenge a brother, possibly one of the victims of the massacre of St. Brice's Day, 13 Nov. 1002 (Emmæ Anglorum Reginæ Encomium ap., Selecta Monumenta, p. 7). Thurkill commanded the Danish fleet which appeared off the south-east coast in August 1009 (A.-S. Chron. ii. 115, Rolls Ser.). Off Thanet he was joined by a second Danish fleet, commanded by Heming and Eglaf ( i. 160–1, Engl. Hist. Soc.), and together they came to Sandwich. For the next two or three years Thurkill probably led the great Danish raids in the southern and eastern counties, but towards the end of that time is thought to have shown a leaning towards Christianity. He was present at the murder of Ælfheah [q. v.], archbishop of Canterbury, in 1012, but, in spite of William of Malmesbury's statement (Gesta Regum, i. 207, Rolls Ser.), probably tried to save the archbishop, offering gold and silver—everything save his beloved ship—in ransom for him (Thietmar of Merseburg ap., Norman Conquest, i. 668). Soon after this it may be inferred that Thurkill embraced Christianity, and with forty or forty-five Danish ships (Encomium, loc. cit.) entered the service of King Ethelred or Æthelred II [q. v.] Thurkill's change of side seems to have hastened the long-contemplated invasion of England by Sweyn or Swegen [q. v.] in 1013 (ib.) He was certainly one of England's most valiant and capable defenders against Sweyn. He was with Ethelred in London in 1013, and helped the citizens to beat off Sweyn's attack; and when that city and the country at large had submitted, it was to Thurkill's fleet lying at Greenwich that King Ethelred fled for refuge. At Greenwich Thurkill remained during the winter of 1013–14, like Sweyn himself, levying contributions at will upon the surrounding land ( i. 168).

It is uncertain when Thurkill forsook the English side and joined Cnut, but his fleet went over with Edric or Eadric Streona [q. v.] in 1015, and Thurkill himself was undoubtedly Cnut's strongest supporter in the war with Edmund Ironside. He remained in England when Cnut returned to Denmark on his father's death, but is said to have followed shortly, thinking it safer so to prove his loyalty, and swore allegiance to Cnut (Encomium, vol. ii. pp. i and iv). He left thirty ships in England, however, and urged Cnut to return thither. In the campaign which followed Cnut's return to England he was prominent, leading the Danish forces at Sherstone in Wiltshire (, Lestorie des Engles, ap., Mon. Hist. Brit. i. 816), and being present with Cnut at the battle of Assandun in Essex (Encomium, ii. 8). Cnut acknowledged his great debt to Thurkill when in 1017 he divided England into four earldoms by giving him that of East-Anglia (A.-S. Chron. ii. 124). Three years later Thurkill was fittingly associated with Cnut in the building and consecration of the church at Assandun by Archbishop Wulfstan of York (ib. ii. 125). Thurkill, too, was a distinguished patron of St. Edmund's Abbey, and in this same year replaced the secular clerks there by monks (Memorials of St. Edmund's Abbey, i. 47, 126, 340). Cnut appears to have distrusted, or been jealous of, Thurkill, for in 1021 he banished him with his wife Eadgytha ( i. 183), possibly the widow of Eadric Streona, and, if so, a daughter of King Ethelred (Norman Conquest, i. 670). Two years later, however, Cnut and Thurkill were reconciled, and, though the latter does not seem to have ever returned to England, he was made Cnut's viceroy in Denmark and guardian of his son, probably the one intended to succeed Cnut there (A.-S. Chron. ii. 126). Thurkill's own son Cnut brought as a hostage for his father to England. Osbern's statement (De Translatione Corporis S. Elphegi ap., Anglia Sacra, ii. 144) that Thurkill was killed on his return to Denmark is untrustworthy, and the date and manner of his death are unknown.

[See, in addition to the chief authorities mentioned in the text, Annales Monastici, vol. ii. (Rolls Ser.); Simeon of Durham's Hist. Eccl. Dunelm. ii. 140, 145, 154, 156; Henry of Huntingdon's Hist. Angl. p. 186; Brompton ap. Twysden's Decem Script. pp. 888, 906.]  THURLAND, EDWARD (1606–1683), judge, born at Reigate, Surrey, in 1606, was the eldest son of Edward Thurland of Reigate, by his wife Elizabeth, daughter and coheir of Richard Elyot of Reigate. The family was originally descended from that of Thurland Castle in Nottinghamshire. His great-great-grandfather was


text:
Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/58

love is young, and mild, and fair As morning soft, as light as air, When o'er the fragrance-teeming mead The zephyr's balms their influence shed. The blue and beauty of her eyes I dare not, cannot tell. Their charm unmatched my tale belies, Oh, sweet their lustre's spell! My love is loving, artless, true; Her words are scant, her glances few; Like fairy music on the sense Those glances' thrilling influence; And fair as budding lily's glow, Just opening to the light, Her spotless skin, surpassing snow. Transparent, lustrous, white.

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

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/58


text:
Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/61

56 Mark those tresses, erst so golden, Sadly weeping plenteous tears; Mark that cheek, the rose's rival, Like the shroud the hue it bears.

See those lips, which shamed the ruby, Fled the witching smile they bore; And those eyes, now fixed and fireless, Gone the enchanting light they wore.

Mark that brow, by bounteous nature Stamped with dignity untold— Once surpassing marble's whiteness, Now 'tis more than marble cold.

Alas! forsaken, lifeless, lonely, Strangers all around thee press; Tearless eyes are gazing on thee, Will no one mourn? none redress?

Far from childhood's haunts and kindred, None are near to mourn thy doom; Distant all, no clust'ring maidens, Loved in life, dispel death's gloom.

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/61


text:
Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/62

Rh Like thy country's has thy fate been; Gone love's sunshine, thou hast died, 'Reft of all who bravely loved her, Long in death's shade has she sighed.

Yet one hope abides unfading, Thou wilt rise in radiance bright; And thy land, from sorrow springing, Yet may glow in Freedom's light.

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/62


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Kirchmann, Julius von

KIRCHMANN, kḗr K 'mȧn, (1802-84). A German jurist and philosopher, born near Merseburg. He was educated at Leipzig and Halle. In 1846 he was made State's attorney in the Criminal Court of Berlin, and two years afterwards was chosen to the Prussian National Assembly. From 1871 to 1876 he was a member of the German Reichstag. He first attracted attention as a philosopher by his brochure Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (1848). His other philosophical writings include: Ueber Unsterblichkeit (1865); Aesthetik auf realistischer Grundlage (1868); translations of parts of Aristotle, Bacon, Grotius, Hume, Leibnitz, and Spinoza, and a remarkable edition of Kant in the Philosophische Bibliothek, edited by him (1868 et seq.), and of Hobbes, De Cive (1873). His philosophy was an attempt to mediate between realism and idealism. Consult Lasson and Meineke, Julius von Kirchmann als Philosoph (Halle, 1885).


text:
Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/63

Chloris! arch young Chloris! Sweetest maid of Sydney town, I perceive she grows a woman, And can take admirers down. Yet I knew her when ten summers Scarce had breathed on her cheek— But even then she was a lady Mixed of quizzical and meek.

Yes, her air was very queenly, As amid "those babes," she stood; And her face was very solemn, Wearing its inquiring mood.

Rarely now she lights our pathways, True, the lads did gaze too hard; But the treasure hide not, Chloris, Once was seen in thy regard.

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/63


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Grosvenor, Richard (1795-1869)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Grosvenor, Robert (d.1396)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Grosvenor, Robert (1767-1845)


text:
Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/64

Rh Strong's the preacher's word, when mildness Mingles with his meet reproof; Strong's the mother's look of sadness, For an erring child's behoof;

Strong's the whisper heard within us, When the heart is good and sound; But in Chloris' lovely features Better teaching far is found.

Yes, where grace and beauty mingle, There is virtue's surest friend; I, for all that teaches goodness. To that face the world commend.

Triumph in your charms subduing, For your praise is spoken still; But I sing not Chloris scornful, Chloris fair I ever will.

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/64


text:
Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/65

radiant eyes of brightest glow, Those flowing locks, with gold-light vieing; Those blooms, like flowers 'mid winter's snow. Have long to me been cause of sighing.

Long felt I, maid, the pains that come From loving with a love unspoken; As streams more deep will aye become Till bounds impeding them are broken.

In vain each devious art I try From thoughts of thee to gain diversion; In vain I wander, vain I fly, My steadfast heart rejects desertion.

For everywhere that form still seems 'Mid brightest scenes a sadness making; For ever present in my dreams— For ever present in my waking.

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/65


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/70

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/70


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/71

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/71


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/72

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/72


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/73

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/73


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/74

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/74


text:
Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/7

 No. 1.

BY LYSANDER SPOONER.

BOSTON:

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR,

1867.

title: Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/7


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/75

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/75


text:
Page:No Treason, v2.djvu/9

 No. II.

The Constitution.

BY LYSANDER SPOONER.

BOSTON:

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR,

1867.

title: Page:No Treason, v2.djvu/9


text:
Page:No Treason, v6.djvu/5

 No. VI.

The Constitution of no Authority.

BY LYSANDER SPOONER.

BOSTON:

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR,

1870.

title: Page:No Treason, v6.djvu/5


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/76

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/76


text: Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/8

title: Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/8


text:
Page:No Treason, v2.djvu/10

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1867,

By LYSANDER SPOONER,

in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the United States, for the District of Massachusetts.

title: Page:No Treason, v2.djvu/10


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/77

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/77


text:
Page:No Treason, v6.djvu/6

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870,

By LYSANDER SPOONER,

in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the United States, for the District of Massachusetts.

first and second numbers of this series were published in 1867. For reasons not necessary to be explained, the sixth is now published in advance of the third, fourth and fifth.

title: Page:No Treason, v6.djvu/6


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/78

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/78


text:
Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/9

question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.

On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it be really established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle—but only in degree—between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and

title: Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/9


text:
Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/10

iv asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that—in theory, at least, if not in practice—our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.

If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown.

title: Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/10


text: Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 1 (1897).djvu/36


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Kirchner, Theodor

KIRCHNER, kḗr K 'nẽr, (1824-1903). A German composer, born at Neukirchen, Saxony. From 1838 to 1842 he studied in Leipzig under J. Knorr (piano) and K. F. Becker (organ and theory). He subsequently was a pupil of J. Schneider in Dresden, and of the Leipzig Conservatory for a short time, becoming in 1843 organist at Winterthur. From 1862 to 1872 he was a teacher in the music school at Zurich, then became director of the Würzburg Conservatory (1873-75), and finally in 1890 settled in Hamburg. Schumann and Mendelssohn were his friends, and Kirchner was especially influenced by the former's music. His compositions are

mostly for the piano, and his preludes, caprices, and nocturnes are charming.


text:
Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 1 (1897).djvu/37

is one of those few writers who hold as high a place in the history of literature as in the roll of great historians. He concerns us here as an historian; our business is to consider how far the view which he has presented of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire can be accepted as faithful to the facts, and in what respects it needs correction in the light of discoveries which have been made since he wrote. But the fact that his work, composed more than a hundred years ago, is still successful with the general circle of educated people, and has not gone the way of Hume and Robertson, whom we laud as "classics" and leave on the cold shelves, is due to the singularly happy union of the historian and the man of letters. Gibbon thus ranks with Thucydides and Tacitus, and is perhaps the clearest example that brilliance of style and accuracy of statement—in Livy's case conspicuously divorced—are perfectly compatible in an historian.

His position among men of letters depends both on the fact that he was an exponent of important ideas and on his style. The appreciation of his style devolves upon the history of literature; but it may be interesting to illustrate how much attention he paid to it, by alterations which he made in his text. The first volume was published, in quarto form, in 1776, and the second quarto edition of this volume, which appeared in 1782, exhibits a considerable number of


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/79

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/79


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/80

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/80


text:
Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/11

 NO. 1.

I.

Notwithstanding all the proclamations we have made to mankind, within the last ninety years, that our government rested on consent, and that that was the only rightful basis on which any government could rest, the late war has practically demonstrated that our government rests upon force—as much so as any government that ever existed.

The North has thus virtually said to the world: It was all very well to prate of consent, so long as the objects to be accomplished were to liberate ourselves from our connexion with England, and also to coax a scattered and jealous people into a great national union; but now that those purposes have been accomplished, and the power of the North has become consolidated, it is sufficient for us—as for all governments—simply to say: Our power is our right.

In proportion to her wealth and population, the North has probably expended more money and blood to maintain her power over an unwilling people, than any other government ever did. And in her estimation, it is apparently the chief glory of her success, and an adequate compensation for all her own losses, and an ample justification for all her devastation and carnage of the South, that all pretence of any necessity for consent to the perpetuity or power of the government, is (as she thinks) forever expunged from the minds of the people. In short, the North

title: Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/11


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/81

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/81


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/82

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/82


text:
Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/12

6 exults beyond measure in the proof she has given, that a government, professedly resting on consent, will expend more life and treasure in crushing dissent, than any government, openly founded on force, has ever done.

And she claims that she has done all this in behalf of liberty! In behalf of free government! In behalf of the principle that government should rest on consent!

If the successors of Roger Williams, within a hundred years after their State had been founded upon the principle of free religious toleration, and when the Baptists had become strong on the credit of that principle, had taken to burning heretics with a fury never before seen among men; and had they finally gloried in having thus suppressed all question of the truth of the State religion; and had they further claimed to have done all this in behalf of freedom of conscience, the inconsistency between profession and conduct would scarcely have been greater than that of the North, in carrying on such a war as she has done, to compel men to live under and support a government that they did not want; and in then claiming that she did it in behalf of the principle that government should rest on consent.

This astonishing absurdity and self-contradiction are to be accounted for only by supposing, either that the lusts of fame, and power, and money, have made her utterly blind to, or utterly reckless of, the inconsistency and enormity of her conduct; or that she has never even understood what was implied in a government's resting on consent. Perhaps this last explanation is the true one. In charity to human nature, it is to be hoped that it is.

II.

What, then, is implied in a government's resting on consent?

If it be said that the consent of the strongest party in a nation, is all that is necessary to justify the establishment of a government that shall have authority over the weaker party, it

title: Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/12


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/83

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/83


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/84

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/84


text: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/85

title: Page:Australian and Other Poems.djvu/85


text:
Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/13

7 may be answered that the most despotic governments in the world rest upon that very principle, viz: the consent of the strongest party. These governments are formed simply by the consent or agreement of the strongest party, that they will act in concert in subjecting the weaker party to their dominion. And the despotism, and tyranny, and injustice of these governments consist in that very fact. Or at least that is the first step in their tyranny; a necessary preliminary to all the oppressions that are to follow.

If it be said that the consent of the most numerous party, in a nation, is sufficient to justify the establishment of their power over the less numerous party, it may be answered:

First. That two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.

Second. It would be absurd for the most numerous party to talk of establishing a government over the less numerous party, unless the former were also the strongest, as well as the most numerous: for it is not to be supposed that the strongest party would ever submit to the rule of the weaker party, merely because the latter were the most numerous. And as matter of fact, it is perhaps never that governments are established by the most numerous party. They are usually, if not always, established by the less numerous party; their superior strength consisting in their superior wealth, intelligence, and ability to act in concert.

Third. Our Constitution does not profess to have been established simply by the majority; but by "the people;" the minority, as much as the majority.

title: Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/13


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/347

 Thomas Thurland of Gamelton Hall, Nottinghamshire. His grandfather, Gervase Thurland, and his father, Edward, were London merchants.

The younger Edward was admitted to the Inner Temple on 20 Oct. 1625, and called to the bar on 15 Oct. 1634. On 13 March 1639–40 he was returned to the Short parliament for the borough of Reigate, but was not re-elected in the Long parliament (Official Returns of Members of Parliament, i. 483). About the same time he was made steward of the manor of Reigate, and on 24 Nov. 1652 was called to the bench of the Inner Temple. He represented Reigate in Richard Cromwell's parliament which met on 27 Jan. 1658–9, was returned for the same borough to the Convention parliament on 9 April 1660, and sat in the parliament of the Restoration from 1661 to 1672 (ib. i. 516, 529;, Hist. of Surrey, ed. Bray, i. 292). In 1661 Thurland was chosen recorder of Reigate and of Guildford, and soon after was selected by James, duke of York, as his solicitor and knighted (ib. i. 40, 342). On 24 April 1672 he was created a serjeant-at-law, and on 24 Jan. 1673 he was appointed a baron of the exchequer, having refused a seat in the common pleas. After sitting six years his infirmities compelled him to retire on 29 April 1679 (, Brief Hist. Relation, 1857, i. 11). He died at Reigate on 14 Jan. 1682–3, and was buried in the chancel of the parish church (, Hist. of Surrey, ed. Bray, i. 317). By his wife, Elizabeth Wright of Buckland in Surrey, he left an only son, Edward, who died five years later, leaving issue.

Thurland was an intimate friend of John Evelyn (1620–1706) [q. v.] and Jeremy Taylor [q. v.] He composed a treatise on prayer which won Evelyn's warmest praise, but which was not published. He employed John Oldham as tutor to his two grandsons 1678–80. His portrait is in the possession of Lord de Saumarez at his residence, 43 Grosvenor Place, London. Lady de Saumarez is a descendant of Thurland through his granddaughter Elizabeth, who was married to Martin Bowes of Bury St. Edmunds. Another portrait of Thurland is in the mayor's court office in the Guildhall, London.

[Foss's Judges of England, vii. 173; Haydn's Book of Dignities, pp. 384, 410; Gent. Mag. 1782, p. 69; Le Neve's Mon. Ang. iii. 38; Pepys's Diary, ed. Braybrooke, ii. 67; Evelyn's Diary, ed. Bray, ii. 33, 100, iii. 63, 74, 87, 91, 106; Harl. Soc. Publ. viii. 191; The Lord Chancellor's Speech in the Exchequer to Baron Thurland at his taking the Oath, 1672.]  THURLOE, JOHN (1616–1668), secretary of state, baptised on 12 June 1616, was the son of Thomas Thurloe, rector of Abbot's Roding, Essex (‘Life’ prefixed to the Thurloe Papers, p. xi). He was brought up to the study of the law, and ‘bred from a youth’ in the service of Oliver St. John (1598?–1673) [q. v.] (Case of Oliver St. John, 1660, pp. 4, 6). By St. John's interest Thurloe was in January 1645 appointed one of the secretaries to the commissioners of parliament at the treaty of Uxbridge (, Memorials, i. 377, ed. 1853). In 1647 he was admitted to Lincoln's Inn, and in March 1648 made receiver of the cursitor's fines under the commissioners of the great seal (ib. ii. 285), a post worth about 350l. per annum. He had nothing to do with the establishment of the republic, and, as to the king's death, he subsequently declared that ‘he was altogether a stranger to that fact, and to all the counsels about it, having not had the least communication with any person whatsoever therein’ (State Papers, vii. 914). In March 1651 he was appointed secretary to St. John and Walter Strickland [q. v.] on their mission to Holland, and on 29 March 1652 the council of state appointed him to be their secretary in place of Walter Frost, deceased. His salary was fixed at 600l. per annum, and he was given lodgings in Whitehall (ib. i. 205; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1651–2, pp. 198, 203). In December 1652 the salary was raised to 800l., and the duty of clerk to the committee for foreign affairs apparently added to his former office (ib. 1652–3, p. 1). In the elevation of Cromwell to the Protectorate Thurloe took a not unimportant part; the letters ordering the sheriffs to proclaim Cromwell were signed by him, and he was charged to perfect the instrument of government. At the same time (22 Dec.) he seems to have been co-opted a member of the council (ib. 1653–1654, pp. 297, 301, 309). He was also given charge of the intelligence department, which had been before confided to Thomas Scott (d. 1660) [q. v.] and Captain George Bishop (ib. p. 133). In addition to this, on 3 May 1655 the Protector entrusted him with the control of the posts both inland and foreign (ib. 1655, pp. 138, 286). Moreover on 10 Feb. 1654 he was made a bencher of Lincoln's Inn (State Papers, vol. i. p. xiii).

Thurloe fulfilled his various duties with conspicuous ability. By the intelligencers he employed in foreign parts, and by the correspondence he organised with the diplomatic agents of the government, he kept the Protector admirably informed of the acts and plans of foreign powers. When


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/348

 the ministers of Charles II were attacked for the ignorance which allowed the Dutch to inflict a crushing surprise upon England in 1667, Thurloe's management of intelligence was held up to them as an example. ‘Thereby,’ said Colonel Birch in the House of Commons, ‘Cromwell carried the secrets of all the princes of Europe at his girdle.’ No one denied the fact, but secretary Morrice pleaded in answer that he was allowed but 700l. a year for intelligence, while Cromwell had allowed 70,000l. (, Diary, 14 Feb. 1668). In reality Thurloe's expenditure for intelligence seems to have been between 1,200l. and 2,000l. per annum (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1653–4, pp. 454, 458;, vii. 483, 785). Under the head of intelligence came also the political police, and so long as Thurloe was in office no conspiracy against the government had a chance of success. His control of the post office enabled him to seize the correspondence of plotters, and his collection of papers contains hundreds of intercepted letters. The spies whom he kept at the court of the exiled king, and the plotters whom he corrupted or intimidated, supplied him with information of each new movement among the royalists (see English Historical Review, 1888 p. 340, 1889 p. 527). An illustration of his vigilance is supplied by the traditional story of the royalist gentleman who was told by Cromwell when he returned to England all that had passed in his secret interview with Charles II (, ii. 42, ed. 1894). Burnet and Welwood tell many similar stories (Own Time, i. 121, 131, ed. 1833;, Memoirs, p. 105).

Thurloe's duties as secretary sometimes required him to set forth the views of the government in a declaration or explain them in a speech. Drafts of two such defences of the policy of the government towards the cavaliers are among his papers (State Papers, iv. 132, v. 786). To the parliament of 1656, in which, as in that of 1654, Thurloe represented Ely, he announced Blake's victory at Santa Cruz, related the discovery of Venner's and Sindercombe's plots, and spoke on behalf of the confirmation of Cromwell's ordinances (, Parliamentary Diary, i. 353, ii. 43, 143; State Papers, vi. 184). On 11 April 1657 he received the thanks of the house for his care and vigilance (Common's Journals, vii. 522). On 13 July of the same year he was sworn in as a member of Cromwell's second council, on 2 Nov. he was elected a governor of the Charterhouse, and on 4 Feb. 1658 he was made chancellor of the university of Glasgow (State Papers, vol. i. p. xvii, vol. vi. p. 777). But in spite of the post which he occupied, and though his services were liberally recognised, Thurloe had very little influence in determining the Protector's policy. ‘In matters of the greatest moment,’ writes Welwood, ‘Cromwell trusted none but his secretary Thurloe, and sometimes not even him’ (Memoirs, p. 105). Thurloe was anxious for Cromwell to accept the crown, but was totally unable to tell Henry Cromwell what the Protector intended to do. ‘Surely,’ he concludes, ‘whatever resolutions his highness takes, they will be his own’ (State Papers, vi. 219). In his confidential letters to Henry Cromwell he more than once expresses his dissatisfaction with the policy of the council (ib. vi. 568, 579). Both agreed in their preference for parliamentary and legal ways, and their opposition to the military party among Cromwell's councillors, and the arbitrary methods they advocated (ib. vii. 38, 55, 56, 99). Thurloe thought that the Protector humoured them too much (ib. vii. 269). With Cromwell personally Thurloe's relations were very close. On one occasion Cromwell took him for a drive in Hyde Park in order to try the six horses sent the Protector by the Duke of Oldenburg; the horses ran away with the coach, and the secretary hurt his leg in jumping out (ib. ii. 652). He was one of the little knot of friends with whom the Protector would sometimes be cheerful and ‘lay aside his greatness’ (, Memorials, iv. 289) in the intervals of confidential deliberations on affairs of state. Thurloe's letters to Henry Cromwell during the Protector's illness, and his remarks on the Protector's death, show unbounded admiration for Cromwell as a ruler, and genuine attachment to him as a man (State Papers, vii. 355, 362, 363, 366, 372, 374).

During the brief government of Richard Cromwell, Thurloe's influence rather increased than diminished. He had played an important part in Richard's elevation; the missing letter nominating Richard as successor had been addressed to him, and the verbal nomination finally made had been made at his instance (ib. vii. 363, 364, 372, 374). Hyde and the royalists were convinced that Thurloe (advised in secret by Pierrepoint and St. John) was the real inspirer of Richard's government (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 421, 423, 425, 435). The officers of the army were jealous of his power over Richard, and complained of evil counsellors. Thurloe thought of resigning, but he could not be spared; and even Richard's reply to the complaints of the army was drawn up by him (State Papers,


text:
Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/14

8 Fourth. If our fathers, in 1776, had acknowledged the principle that a majority had the right to rule the minority, we should never have become a nation; for they were in a small minority, as compared with those who claimed the right to rule over them.

Fifth. Majorities, as such, afford no guarantees for justice. They are men of the same nature as minorities. They have the same passions for fame, power, and money, as minorities; and are liable and likely to be equally—perhaps more than equally, because more boldly—rapacious, tyrannical and unprincipled, if intrusted with power. There is no more reason, then, why a man should either sustain, or submit to, the rule of a majority, than of a minority. Majorities and minorities cannot rightfully be taken at all into account in deciding questions of justice. And all talk about them, in matters of government, is mere absurdity. Men are dunces for uniting to sustain any government, or any laws, except those in which they are all agreed. And nothing but force and fraud compel men to sustain any other. To say that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as majorities please to allow them.

Sixth. It is not improbable that many or most of the worst of governments—although established by force, and by a few, in the first place—come, in time, to be supported by a majority. But if they do, this majority is composed, in large part, of the most ignorant, superstitious, timid, dependent, servile, and corrupt portions of the people: of those who have been over-awed by the power, intelligence, wealth, and arrogance; of those who have been deceived by the frauds; and of those who have been corrupted by the inducements, of the few who really constitute the government. Such majorities, very likely, could be found in half, perhaps in nine- tenths, of all the countries on the globe. What do they prove? Nothing but the tyranny and corruption of the very governments that have reduced so large portions of

title: Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/14


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/349

 vii. 447, 490, 495). From the moment of the old Protector's death, Thurloe had feared that the government would be ruined by the dissensions of its friends rather than by the attacks of the royalists; but he endeavoured to shake off his melancholy forebodings, and set to work to secure a Cromwellian majority in the coming parliament (ib. vii. 364, 541, 588). He himself was elected for the university of Cambridge, for Tewkesbury, and for Huntingdon, but made his choice for Cambridge (ib. vii. 565, 572, 585–8).

In the parliament of January to April 1659 Thurloe was the official leader of the supporters of the government, and its recognised spokesman. On 1 Feb. he introduced a bill which he had drafted for the recognition of Richard Cromwell as lord-protector (ib. vii. 603, 609;, Diary, iii. 25). On 21 Feb., and again on 24 Feb., he gave a clear exposition of the state of foreign affairs and of the policy of the government (ib. iii. 314, 376, 481). On 7 March he defended the authority of the second house, and on 7 April explained the state of the finances (ib. iv. 68, 365). During the session he was called upon to defend himself with regard to the police administration under the late Protector. From the moment the parliament met, Hyde and the royalist agents in England had regarded an attack upon Thurloe as one of the first and most necessary steps towards the overthrow of the Protectorate (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 426, 428, 436). He had not abused his power to extort money, as some of his colleagues were accused of doing, but he had arbitrarily committed supposed plotters to prison, and transported them without legal trial. On 25 March a certain Rowland Thomas presented a petition stating that he had been sold to Barbados by Thurloe's order, and demanded redress. Thurloe answered these and similar attacks by pleading reason of state, asserting that the persons complaining were royalist conspirators, and adding that similar conspiracies were even now on foot. But the republican opposition, backed by a number of crypto-royalists, replied by asserting that the supposed plots were pretended to justify arbitrary rule (ib. iii. 441, 446, 448, 453, 457, 463;, iv. 254, 301). In the end Thurloe successfully weathered the storm, though some of his subordinate agents were not so fortunate (ib. iv. 307, 407). In spite of their pertinacity the parliamentary opposition were beaten on point after point, and the government seemed in a way to be firmly established. But the quarrel which took place between the parliament and the army proved fatal. To the last Thurloe, deserted by the rest of the council, urged Richard not to dissolve parliament, but Richard at length gave way (Life of John Howe, 1724, p. 9). ‘I am in so much confusion that I can scarce contain myself to write about it,’ said Thurloe in announcing Richard's fall to Lockhart (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 461). For a few days he carried on the management of foreign affairs, and received with apparent favour the offer of French aid to maintain Richard Cromwell's power; but on the restoration of the Long parliament (7 May 1659) those of his functions which were not entrusted to committees were assigned to Thomas Scott (, Richard Cromwell, i. 367, 376, 385, 389, 393, 401).

After the readmission of the secluded members (21 Feb. 1660) Thurloe, to the great disgust of the royalists, was reappointed secretary of state (27 Feb.) as being the only man whose knowledge of the state both of foreign and home affairs fitted him for the post (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 693, 701). The royalists suspected him of desiring to restore Richard, and were anxious to buy him over if possible; but, according to their information, he resisted the restoration of the Stuarts to the last, and did his best to corrupt Monck (ib. iii. 693, 749;, vii. 855). In April, however, he certainly made overtures to Hyde, promising to forward a restoration, but his sincerity was suspected (, vii. 897). Monck so far favoured Thurloe that he recommended him to the borough of Bridgnorth for election to the Convention; but even with this support his candidature was a failure (ib. pp. 888, 895).

After the king's return Thurloe escaped better than he could have expected. On 15 May 1660 he was accused of high treason and committed to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms. The particulars of the charge do not appear. On 29 June he was set at liberty with the proviso of attending the secretaries of state ‘for the service of the state whenever they should require’ (Commons' Journals, viii, 26, 117). He was reputed to have said that if he were hanged he had a black book which would hang many that went for cavaliers, but he seems to have made no revelations as to his secret agents (Hist. MSS. Comm. 5th Rep. pp. 154–84, 208). After his release he usually lived at Great Milton in Oxfordshire, residing at his chambers in Lincoln's Inn occasionally during term-time. The government desired to avail itself of his minute knowledge of the state of foreign affairs, on which subject he addressed several papers to Clarendon (-


text:
Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 1 (1897).djvu/76

2 subduing the whole earth, and to introduce a spirit of moderation into the public councils. Inclined to peace by his temper and situation, it was easy for him to discover that Rome, in her present exalted situation, had much less to hope than to fear from the chance of arms; and that, in the prosecution of remote wars, the undertaking became every day more difficult, the event more doubtful, and the possession more precarious and less beneficial. The experience of Augustus added weight to these salutary reflections, and effectually convinced him that, by the prudent vigour of his counsels, it would be easy to secure every concession which the safety or the dignity of Rome might require from the most formidable barbarians. Instead of exposing his person and his legions to the arrows of the Parthians, he obtained, by an honourable treaty, the restitution of the standards and prisoners which had been taken in the defeat of Crassus.

His generals, in the early part of his reign, attempted the reduction of Æthiopia and Arabia Felix. They marched near a thousand miles to the south of the tropic; but the heat of the climate soon repelled the invaders and protected the unwarlike natives of those sequestered regions. The northern countries of Europe scarcely deserved the expense and labour of conquest. The forests and morasses of Germany were filled with a hardy race of barbarians, who despised life when it was separated from freedom; and though, on the first attack, they seemed to yield to the weight of the Roman power, they soon, by a signal act of despair, regained their independence, and reminded Augustus of the vicissitude of fortune. On the death of that emperor his testament was publicly read in the senate. He bequeathed, as a valuable legacy to his successors, the advice of confining the empire within those limits which Nature seemed to have placed


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/350

Thurloe , i. 705, 759, vii. 915). An unsupported tradition asserts that Charles II often solicited him to engage again in the administration of foreign affairs, but without success (State Papers, vol. i. p. xix). He died at his chambers at Lincoln's Inn on 21 Feb. 1667–8, and is buried in the chapel there. An account of his last illness, written by his friend Lord Wharton, is printed in ‘Notes and Queries,’ 8th ser. xi. 83.

Thurloe was twice married: first, to a lady of the family of Peyton, by whom he had two sons who died in infancy; secondly, to Anne, third daughter of Sir John Lytcott of East Moulsey in Surrey, by whom he had four sons and two daughters (State Papers, vol. i. p. xix).

A portrait of Thurloe by Stone, belonging to Mr. Charles Polhill, was No. 812 in the National Portrait Exhibition of 1866. Another portrait, ascribed to Dobson, is in the National Portrait Gallery, London. An engraved portrait by Vertue is prefixed to the state papers.

Thurloe's vast correspondence is the chief authority for the history of the Protectorate. His papers, no doubt purposely hidden at the Restoration, were discovered in the reign of William III, ‘in a false ceiling in the garrets belonging to secretary Thurloe's chambers, No. xiii near the chapel in Lincoln's Inn, by a clergyman who had borrowed those chambers, during the long vacation, of the owner of them.’ The papers were sold to Lord Somers, passed from him to Sir Joseph Jekyll, master of the rolls, on whose decease they were bought by Fletcher Gyles, a bookseller (Preface to the Thurloe Papers, p. vi). Richard Rawlinson purchased them from Gyles in 1752, and left them to the Bodleian Library at his death in 1755 (, Annals of the Bodleian Library, 1890, p. 236). Before this time, in 1742, Thomas Birch had printed his seven folio volumes of Thurloe state papers, adding to the original collection a certain number of papers from manuscripts in the possession of Lord Shelburne, Lord Hardwicke, and others. The manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, which include a considerable number of unpublished letters, are catalogued as Rawlinson MSS. A. vols. 1 to 73. Others which Birch obtained from Lord Hardwicke are now in the British Museum (Addit. MSS. 4157, 4158). Letters from Thurloe to English agents in Switzerland form part of Robert Vaughan's ‘Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell,’ 2 vols. 1836.

[A memoir of Thurloe serves as introduction to the State Papers. Other authorities are mentioned in the article.]  THURLOW, EDWARD, first (1731–1806), lord chancellor, eldest son of the Rev. Thomas Thurlow (d. 1762), incumbent successively of Little Ashfield, Suffolk, and of Thurston, Long Stratton, and Knapton, Norfolk, by Elizabeth, daughter of Robert Smith, a descendant of Sir Richard Hovell, esquire of the body to Henry V, was born at Bracon Ash, Norfolk, on 9 Dec. 1731. His grandfather, Thomas Thurlow, whose cousin, John Thurlow, obtained a license for armorial bearings, 19 Nov. 1664, was a scion of the Thurlows of Burnham, Norfolk, who are traceable as far back as the reign of Henry VIII. It is therefore probable that the carrier of Cromwell's time, whom the chancellor, in disclaiming descent from secretary Thurloe, jocularly claimed as his ancestor, was a mythical personage. Thurlow had two younger brothers: Thomas [see ], bishop of Durham; John, who died alderman of Norwich on 11 March 1782, and whose son, Edward South Thurlow (1764–1847), prebendary of Norwich, was father of Charles Augustus Thurlow (d. 1873), chancellor of the diocese of Chester.

Being hard to manage at home, Thurlow was early committed to the care of the Rev. Joseph Brett, master of Seckars school, Scarning, Norfolk, a disciplinarian of the then approved type. There he became an adept at cock-throwing, which he celebrated in some Latin elegiacs printed by Lord Campbell (Chancellors, ed. 1868, viii. 157), and conceived an unalterable aversion for the master. ‘I am not bound,’ he said savagely in later life, when Brett claimed acquaintance, ‘I am not bound to recognise every scoundrel that recognises me.’ After four years at Scarning he was removed with the character of an incorrigibly bad boy to King's school, Canterbury, where he acquired sufficient knowledge of the classics to enable him to take, upon his matriculation at Cambridge, 5 Oct. 1748, a Perse scholarship at Gonville and Caius College. There he distinguished himself by idleness and insubordination. His misconduct occasioned his removal from college without a degree soon after Lady-day 1751. His destination being already determined, he was placed in the office of a solicitor named Chapman, of Ely Place, Holborn, where he found a congenial companion in William Cowper [q. v.], the poet. Cowper introduced him to his uncle, Ashley Cowper, at whose house in Southampton Row the two spent much of their time in flirting with the ladies. On 9 Jan. 1752 Thurlow was admitted a member of the Inner Temple, where he was called to the bar on


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/351

 22 Nov. 1754, elected a bencher on 29 Jan. 1762, reader in 1769, and treasurer in 1770. Though he was never a hard student, he appears to have usually spent the morning hours in reading, and in the evening frequently strayed no farther from his chambers than Nando's coffee-house, in the immediate vicinity of Temple Bar.

The ascription to him of an anonymous pamphlet, published in 1760, entitled ‘A Refutation of the Letter to an Hon. Brigadier-general [George Townshend, first marquis Townshend [q. v.] ], commander of His Majesty's forces in Canada,’ is merely conjectural (Notes and Queries, 3rd ser. iii. 121).

At the bar Thurlow is said to have first distinguished himself by the spirit and address with which, in an unreported case of Robinson v. Lord Winchilsea, before Lord Mansfield at the Guildhall in 1758, he discomfited Fletcher (afterwards Sir Fletcher) Norton [q. v.], who thought to silence him by browbeating. He argued for the defendant in the great copyright case of Tonson v. Collins, before Lord Mansfield in the king's bench in Trinity term 1761 [see ], and in Hilary term 1762 received from Lord Northington the premature distinction of a silk gown. It is likely that this early advancement was due to the interest of Thomas Thynne, third viscount Weymouth [q. v.], through which Thurlow was returned to parliament for Tamworth on 23 Dec. 1765 (Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. App. iv. 401). He retained the seat until his removal to the House of Lords, and was elected recorder of the borough on 11 Oct. 1769.

The decisive turn in Thurlow's affairs is traditionally ascribed to a lucky chance. The cause célèbre of Douglas v. Hamilton, on which depended the succession to the Douglas estates, was decided by the court of session (15 July 1767) on an array of minute circumstantial evidence. Thurlow studied the case with care, and expressed in Nando's coffee-house a strong opinion that the decision was erroneous. This was overheard by some of the appellants' agents, and led to his being retained for the appeal. On 14 Jan. 1769 he fought a duel in Hyde Park with the Duke of Hamilton's agent, Andrew Stuart [q. v.], who had demanded satisfaction for some severe reflections which Thurlow had made upon his conduct. On 27 Feb. the House of Lords reversed the decision of the court of session (St. James's Chron. 17 Jan. 1769; Scots Mag. 1769, pp. 107 et seq.).

In the House of Commons Thurlow's first reported speech was on the question raised by Wilkes's expulsion, viz. whether a mere vote was adequate for the purpose. In support of the affirmative Thurlow referred to the vote of 11 April 1614, by which it was determined that no future attorney-general should sit in the House of Commons, a precedent followed in the subsequent parliaments of 1620–1 and 1625–6 by the exclusion of Sir Thomas Coventry and Sir Robert Heath (Comm. Journ. i. 316, 324, 456–60, 513, 817).

Appointed solicitor-general, 30 March 1770, Thurlow acted with the attorney-general, Sir William De Grey (afterwards Lord Walsingham) [q. v.], in the prosecution of the printers and publishers of ‘Junius's Letter to the King’ [see ; and ]. In the House of Commons (27 Nov. and 6 Dec. 1770) he increased his reputation by his able defence of the practice of issuing informations for libel by the attorney-general ex officio, and Lord Mansfield's direction to the juries in the recent cases [see, first ]. He succeeded De Grey as attorney-general on 26 Jan. 1771, stoutly maintained the privilege of the House of Commons in the affair of the lord mayor Brass Crosby [q. v.] and Alderman Richard Oliver [q. v.], and was placed on the secret committee charged with the investigation of the attendant circumstances (28 March). He was a member of the select committee on East Indian affairs elected on 16 April 1772, and by his opposition to the clause which left the nomination of the judges to the directors contributed to the defeat of the East India Judicature Bill (18 May). He was also a member of the committee for drafting the East India Bill of the following year, supported the parliamentary inquiry into the administration of Lord Clive, and urged that it should be conducted without regard to the rule of law which excuses a witness from answering questions which tend to criminate him (Parl. Hist. xvii. 854, 870, 880).

The reasoning by which, on appeal to the House of Lords in the great copyright case of Donaldsons v. Becket (February 1774), he overthrew Lord Mansfield's doctrine of perpetual copyright at common law was unimpugnable; but in opposing the legislative settlement of the question he evinced an illiberal spirit. He has been censured for supporting (17 Feb. 1774) the motion for compelling the attendance of compositors to give evidence at the bar of the House of Commons as to the authorship of the letter to the speaker imputed to John Horne, afterwards Horne Tooke [q. v.]; but if the house was to assume the functions of a court of justice, it was manifestly desirable that


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/336

attainted in consequence. The son, who thereby forfeited some lands in Cranbrook, fled to Richmond in Brittany, and returned with him two years later, landing along with him at Milford Haven, where he is said to have been knighted. It may be presumed he was with Henry at Bosworth. Little more than a month later, on 29 Sept. 1485, the new king appointed him one of the chamberlains of the receipt of exchequer, master of the ordnance and of the armoury, with houses on Tower Wharf, and keeper of the royal manor of Kennington, where the king took up his abode before his coronation. As a chamberlain of the receipt of the exchequer he had the appointment of an 'usher of the receipt,' and of other officers. What were his emoluments in that office does not appear; but as master of the ordnance he had two shillings a day with allowances for persons under him, and as master of the armoury a shilling a day with like allowances—the pay, as regards the latter office, to date from 8 Aug., a fortnight before the battle of Bosworth, when it appears that he received the appointment from Henry though he was not yet king (, Materials, i. 68, 369). When Henry's first parliament met his attainder was reversed (Rolls of Parl. vi. 2736). As master of the armoury he had to prepare the 'justes' for the king's coronation, for which a hundred marks were paid him in advance. For the like preparations at the queen's coronation two years later he also received a hundred marks; and on another occasion, shortly after the first, we meet with a payment to him of 16l. 19s. 10d. for the repair of the 'justes' in question.

The king also made him a privy councillor and granted him various lands and some wardships which fell vacant. Among the former was the manor of Higham in Sussex, which was granted him in tail male with 'the increase of the land there by the retirement of the sea: to hold by fealty and the service of supporting a tower in his marsh near the port called the Camber in Sussex, to be built within two years from the date of these presents, for the protection of the inhabitants of Kent and Sussex from rebels and others navigating the sea there.' His genius evidently lay in the control of artillery and fortifications, engineering and shipbuilding, for which various payments to him are recorded. The lands he won from the sea are to this day called Guilford Level. In 1486 he received 'for the making of a ship within the county of Kent' 100l. ; on 8 March 1487 13l. 6s. 8d. was paid him as master of a vessel called the Mary Gylford, named probably after a daughter who, in Henry VIII's time, was married to one Christopher Kempe (, Hist. of Kent, ii. 128); and on 12 April he had 40l. 'for the building and novel construction of a ship to be made de novo with ordnance and fittings.' This last, it is clear, was the same as the ship first mentioned, 'to be made within the county of Kent.' It was to be a vessel of seven hundred tons, 'like the Colombe of France.' In the spring of 1487, again, we find that he was commissioned to construct a ship called the Regent. Another curious entry relating to him is a warrant to pay him 17l. on 2 Oct. 1486 for a collar of gold of that value, which he had delivered to the king in order that it might be given to a 'gentilman estraungere comyng unto us. out of the parties of Flaundres.'

In 1487 it appears that the treasurer and barons of the exchequer had for some reason seized the office of chamberlain of the receipt, which had been granted to him by the king for life; but he obtained a warrant under the privy seal to prevent them proceeding further until the king himself had examined the official arrangements, with a view apparently to greater efficiency. A little later he surrendered the office, which was then granted to Lord Daubeney [q. v.] On 14 July he was given the wardship and marriage of Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Robert Mortymer, with the custody of her lands during her minority. In Michaelmas term 1488 a payment of 12l. to a London merchant is authorised 'for a table delivered by him to Richard Guldeford for the Sovereign.' On 11 March 1489 he had a warrant to the exchequer to reimburse him 30l. which he had laid out 'in harnessing' (i.e. arming) seven of the king's servants and seventeen of the queen's. In September following certain alterations were ordered to be made in the buildings of Westminster Palace under the direction of Guildford and the Earl of Ormonde.

In 1490 Guildford undertook to serve the king at sea with 550 marines and soldiers, in three ships, for two months from 12 July. On 13 May, apparently in the same year, he had a grant of three hundred marks out of the subsidies in the port of Chichester. On 20 Feb. 1492 Henry VII made his will in view of his proposed invasion of France, and appointed Guildford one of his trustees (Rolls of Parl. vi. 4443). Guildford also made great preparations for that expedition, and for his expenses in so doing the king on 30 March ordered an immediate advance to be made to him of 20l. out of an allowance of 40l. a year already granted to him over and above his fees as master of the ordnance and of the armoury. He accordingly accompanied the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/352

 it should proceed upon adequate information. His opposition to the perpetuation of the Grenville Act, by which the jurisdiction in election petition cases was transferred from the whole house to special committees, shows that he had formed a juster estimate of the nature of the evils to be remedied than the author of that measure (25 Feb. 1774). He established his reputation as a constitutionalist by his defence of the ministerial scheme for the government of the province of Quebec (26 May 1774), by his exposition of the nature and extent of the royal prerogative of legislation in dependencies of the crown on the third hearing of the Grenada case before Lord Mansfield (7 Nov. 1774), and by his ingenious though unsuccessful defence of Lord Rochford in the action of false imprisonment brought against him by Stephen Sayre (26 June 1776). His conduct of the Duchess of Kingston's case was marred by both bad taste and cruelty [see ]; and in proposing the pillory (24 Nov. 1777) as the reward of Horne's manifesto in favour of the Lexington insurgents he undeniably displayed an excess of zeal. Throughout the dispute with the American colonies he inflexibly maintained the right of the mother country and the duty of exerting her full might. This naturally endeared him to the king, who insisted on his advancement to the woolsack on the resignation of Lord Bathurst (Corresp. of George III with Lord North, ii. 154 et seq., 167–74, 196). He was at the same time raised to the peerage as Baron Thurlow of Ashfield, Suffolk (3 June 1778). The event drew from his old friend Cowper a generous if somewhat pedestrian tribute to his ‘superior worth’ [see, (1731–1800)]. He took the oaths in Westminster Hall on 19 June, and in the House of Lords on 14 July, his first act on occupying the woolsack being to declare parliament prorogued. When parliament reassembled (26 Nov.) debate was abundant on the address, the recent treaty of alliance between France and the American confederation, and the consequent manifesto of the British commissioners. The latter document was defended by Thurlow in his usual thoroughgoing style. He also spoke on some other matters, e.g. the Keppel court-martial, the bill for which he remodelled, and the subsequent motions for a court-martial on Sir Hugh Palliser and the removal of the Earl of Sandwich from the admiralty, and was publicly taunted by the Duke of Grafton [see, third ] with his plebeian origin and the recency of his patent. In reply Thurlow haughtily contrasted his own honourable exertions with ‘the accident of an accident,’ to which he ascribed the duke's seat; and protested that he had not solicited but been solicited by the peerage, and that both as chancellor and as a man he was as respectable and as much respected as the proudest peer he then looked down upon (, Reminiscences, i. 188). After this manly vindication of his official and personal dignity he had little difficulty in establishing his ascendency over the peers. Under his guidance they turned a deaf ear to the representations addressed to them in 1779 by Lord Shelburne on the distressed and disaffected condition of Ireland and the scandalous waste of the public money, and in 1780 threw out the bills to deprive revenue officers of the parliamentary franchise and government contractors of their seats in the House of Commons which were sent up to them by the lower house. He was emphatically the king's chancellor, and as such was employed on the secret and abortive negotiations for a reconstruction of the administration which followed the resignation of Lords Gower and Weymouth in October 1779 (Corresp. of George III with Lord North, ii. 295; Egerton MS. 2232, ff. 16, 23–34). Thurlow consistently supported Sir George Savile's measures for the relief of catholics, and justified the use of the military to repress the Gordon riots (21 June 1780).

His somewhat vague and diffident utterances on the rupture with Holland, 25 Jan. 1781, did not enhance his reputation as a publicist; but he retained the confidence of the king, whose design of raising Lord George Germain to a peerage he loyally furthered [see, first ]; and when the whigs acceded to power under Lord Rockingham (March 1782), they were compelled to acquiesce in Thurlow's continuance in office (Rockingham Memoirs, ed. Albemarle, ii. 452). In their foreign policy he concurred, but supported none of their domestic measures, and energetically opposed the Contractors Bill and the revision of the civil list. Though he retained the great seal on the death of Lord Rockingham (1 July 1782), he had little to do with the formation of the Shelburne administration, the instability of which he foresaw (Hist. MSS. Comm. 5th Rep. App. pp. 210–12). To the concession of legislative independence to Ireland he gave a reluctant consent, and took no part in the parliamentary discussion (ib. 12th Rep. App. x. 86). In the debate of 17 Feb. 1783 on the preliminary articles of peace he ably vin-


text:
User:Timeastor

Hello, it is I. ;–) E-mail me if you have anything to say.

For further information about me you may visit my English Wikipedia user page (userpage, user's page, user-page, hm-m-m ...)))))))

On Translation
The art of translation is the art of compromise. It can be likened to walking a fine line between the two:

 * Keeping true to the spirit and letter of the original work
 * Keeping the target text natural-sounding and at home with the language you translated it for.

While we must always keep up the spirit of the translated work, we can never fully keep its wording. Indeed, often our excessive determination to keep the target-language phrasing and wording "as close as possible" to the original would issue in clumsy word constructions, unnatural phrasing, and in effect the feel of the original work would slip from us. Thus, paradoxically, our good intention to be precise would lead us to misrepresentation.

However, we must not be reckless and treat the original wording carelessly, of course! :-)) That would be the other extremity. We must keep the original wording where we reasonably may. (The funniest thing in that regard is when you take up a translation of a highly punned work, abounding in word-play. There you say good-bye to the exact wording of the original))))))

Summarizing, I shall say: Always keep your translation true to the spirit of the original work, and at necessary points let go of its precise wording. Thus you will keep the translation both natural-sounding and closest to the feel of the original. ;-)

My Translations Into English

 * The Blizzard (Alexander Pushkin)

 * Marina Tsvetaeva:
 * Pass by, as you look so like me ...
 * The many fallen ones into the deepest ...
 * A tender noisy troublemaker ...
 * Your name is a finch in my hand ...
 * At my Moscow home how the domes do shine!..
 * The seven hills founded – like so many bells grounded!..
 * Here is a window anon ...
 * Not for Grishka-Thief you've fallen, over-Polacked ...
 * God is right ...
 * Should any soul have the gift of wings ...
 * The Train of Life
 * Floor-cleaners' song

_____________________________________________________________________

title: User:Timeastor


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/44

 Bourne contends that a cuckold is one of the scarcest of created beings.

[Genest's History of the Stage ; Baker, Reed, and Jones's Biographia Dramatica.]  BOURNE, ROBERT, M.D. (1761–1829), professor of medicine, was born at Shrawley, Worcestershire, and educated at Bromsgrove, whence he was elected scholar of Worcester College, Oxford, and became a fellow of that society. He proceeded B.A. in 1781, M.A. in 1784, M.B. in 1786, and in 1787 took the degree of M.D. and was elected physician to the Radcliffe Infirmary at Oxford. In 1790 he became a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. In 1794 he was appointed reader of chemistry at Oxford, in 1803 professor of physic, and in 1824 of clinical medicine. He died at Oxford on 23 Dec. 1829. A monument was erected to him in the chapel of his college. His published works are: 1. 'An Introductory Lecture to a Course of Chemistry,' 1797. 2. 'Cases of Pulmonary Consumption treated with Uva ursi,' 1805.

[Munk's Coll. of Phys. (1878), ii. 401.]  BOURNE, VINCENT (1695–1747), Latin poet, son of Andrew Bourne, was born in 1695, and admitted on the foundation of Westminster School in 1710. He was elected to a scholarship at Trinity College, Cambridge, on 27 May 1714, proceeded B.A. in 1717, became a fellow of his college in 1720, and commenced M.A. in 1721. On Addison's recovery in 1717 from an attack of illness, Bourne addressed to him a copy of congratulatory Latin verses. In 1721 he edited a collection of 'Carmina Comitialia,' which contains, among the 'Miscellanea' at the end, some verses of his own. On leaving Cambridge he became a master at Westminster School, and continued to hold this appointment until his death. In 1734 he published his 'Poemata, Latine partim reddita, partim scripta,' with a dedication to the Duke of Newcastle, and in November of the same year he was appointed housekeeper and deputy sergeant-at-arms to the House of Commons. A second edition of his poems appeared in 1735, and a third edition, with an appendix of 112 pages, in 1743. Cowper, who was a pupil of Bourne's at Westminster, and who translated several of his pieces into English verse, says (in a letter to the Rev. John Newton dated 10 May 1781) : 'I love the memory of Vinny Bourne. I think him a better Latin poet than Tibullus, Propertius, Ausonius, or any of the writers in his way except Ovid, and not at all inferior to him.' Landor remarks on this judgment of Cowper's: 'Mirum ut perperam, ne dicam stolide, judicaverit poeta pæene inter summos nominandus ' (Poemata et Inscriptiones, ed. 1847, p. 300). Charles Lamb was a warm admirer of Bourne. In his 'Complaint of the Decay of Beggars' he inserted a translation of the 'Epitaphium in Canem,' together with the Latin original ; and in one of his letters to Wordsworth, written in 1815, there is a charming criticism of Bourne's poems, which he had then been reading for the first time : 'What a sweet, unpretending, pretty-manner'd, matterful creature ! Sucking from every flower, making a flower of everything ! His diction all Latin, and his thoughts all English ! ' A special favourite with Lamb was 'Cantatrices,' a copy of verses on the ballad-singers of the Seven Dials. Among Lamb's miscellaneous poems are nine translations from the Latin of Vincent Bourne. The charm of Bourne's poems lies not so much in the elegance of his Latinity (though that is considerable) as in his genial optimism and homely touches of quiet pathos. He had quick sympathy for his fellow-men, and loving tenderness towards all domestic animals. His epitaphs, particularly the 'Epitaphium in septem annorum puellulam,' are models of simplicity and grace. Bourne's little volume of Latin verses will keep his memory fragrant and his fame secure when many whose claims were more pretentious are forgotten. He was a man of peaceful temperament, content to pass his life in indolent repose. As a teacher he wanted energy, and he was a very lax disciplinarian. Cowper, in one of his letters to Rose (dated 30 Nov. 1788), says that he was so inattentive to his pupils, and so indifferent whether they brought him good or bad exercises, that 'he seemed determined, as he was the best, so to be the last, Latin poet of the Westminster line.' In another letter Cowper writes : 'I lost more than I got by him ; for he made me as idle as himself.' He was particularly noted for the slovenliness of his attire. Cowper relates that he remembered seeing the Duke of Richmond set fire to his greasy locks, and box his ears to put it out again.' It is said that the Duke of Newcastle offered him valuable ecclesiastical preferment, and that he declined the offer from conscientious motives. In a letter to his wife, written shortly before his death, he says : 'I own and declare that the importance of so great charge [i.e. entering into holy orders], joined with a mistrust of my own sufficiency, made me fearful of undertaking it : if I have not in that capacity assisted in the salvation of souls, I have not been the means of losing any ; if I have not brought reputation to the function by any


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/353

 dicated the exercise of the prerogative in the cession of the Floridas. On the coalition of Fox and North, the former insisted on Thurlow's resignation, and, the king at length yielding, Thurlow retired with a pension of 2,680l. and the reversion (which fell in in 1786) of a tellership in the exchequer, and the great seal was put in commission (9 April 1783) [see, first ]. In opposition Thurlow resisted in vain the concession of exclusive jurisdiction to the Irish courts and House of Lords. He continued to be consulted by the king, and it was by his advice that the royal mind in regard to the India Bill was communicated to the peers (, Courts and Cabinets of George III, i. 227, 289; FOX, Corresp. ed. Russell, ii. 47, 61 et seq., 251 et seq.). On the consequent defeat of that measure the king sent for Pitt, and Thurlow resumed the great seal (23 Dec.), which on the eve of the dissolution (23–24 March 1784) was stolen from his house in Great Ormonde Street. If, as was surmised, the robbery was concerted by political malcontents in the hope of deferring the dissolution, they were signally disappointed. A new seal was hastily cast, and parliament dissolved on 25 March. The lost seal was never recovered, nor were the burglars traced (Gent. Mag. 1784, i. 230, 378).

On his return from the country with a solid majority, Pitt for some sessions found in Thurlow a fairly loyal supporter; though the chancellor asserted his freedom by opposing the bill for restoring forfeited estates to the descendants of the Jacobite insurgents of 1745 (16 Aug. 1784). Thurlow also warmly espoused the royal scheme for raising Warren Hastings to the peerage, of which Pitt doubted the expediency. He even talked of affixing the great seal to the patent by the mere authority of the king—a step which was averted by the unexpected sanction given by Pitt to the proposed peer's impeachment. At the trial, which began on 13 Feb. 1788, Thurlow presided so long as he held the great seal, and by the consent of all contemporaries nobly sustained the dignity of British justice. With Pitt his relations became less and less cordial. Pitt's attitude towards slavery disgusted him, and he resented his insistence on the advancement of Richard Pepper Arden (afterwards Baron Alvanley) [q. v.] to the mastership of the rolls (4 June 1788) (Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. App. v. 425). During the discussions on the regency question (November 1788) he entered into clandestine negotiations with the Prince of Wales and the whigs (Egerton MS. 2232, ff. 73–7). The discovery of his hat in the prince's closet during a council held at Windsor revealed his intrigues to Pitt, who entrusted Lord Camden with the exposition of his scheme. Meanwhile Thurlow found himself almost equally distrusted by Fox, and as soon as the king's health began to mend gave an ostentatious support to the ministerial proposals. He even affixed the great seal to a fictitious commission for the opening of the parliament to which they were to be submitted (, Court and Cabinets of George III, i. 435, ii. 23–4;, Life of Pitt, i. 378–403).

Conscious that he was distrusted by Pitt, Thurlow keenly resented the elevation of William Wyndham Grenville [q. v.] to the peerage; but dissembled his feelings while he waited the opportunity of dealing a fatal blow at the great minister. He thus supported Pitt's foreign policy even when least defensible, as in the threatening attitude towards Russia (29 March 1791), while he attempted to terminate the impeachment of Hastings on the technical ground that it had abated by the dissolution of the parliament in which it had been instituted, and succeeded in throwing out Fox's libel bill.

Having thus done his best to perpetuate the virtual abrogation of trial by jury in cases in which it was really the palladium of British liberty, he took occasion to pose as its most ardent champion in a charge to the jury of the pix, in which he animadverted severely on an innocent proposal of the chancellor of the exchequer to dispense with it in certain proceedings under the revenue laws. The unfortunate Sinking Fund Bill he opposed with an adroitness which almost secured its defeat. At the same time he so far lost his self-command as to to treat Lord Grenville with discourtesy. Pitt and Grenville thereupon required the king to choose between them and the chancellor, and it was arranged, 18 to 21 May 1792, that Thurlow should retire. He did so on the prorogation (15 June), the only token of favour which he received being a patent (dated 11 June) creating him Baron Thurlow of Thurlow, Suffolk, with remainder to the heirs male of his nephews (, Court and Cabinets of George III, ii. 208–10;, Diaries, i. 95–9). Thenceforth Thurlow was rarely heard in debate, though he continued to take part in the judicial business of the House of Lords, and now and again intervened in the parliamentary wrangles to which the trial of Hastings continued to give rise.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/354

 The great events which caused Burke to appeal from the new to the old whigs threw Thurlow for a time into the arms of the former party. He courted the Prince of Wales, and moved for an increase of his allowance on his marriage; he opposed the repressive measures taken by the government during the revolutionary fever of 1795–6; and when they passed he withdrew from parliament in simulated disgust. During the winter of 1797 he was occupied in fruitless attempts to mediate between the Prince and Princess of Wales. As all hope of return to power died away, he returned to his place in the House of Lords to discuss with philosophic calm the incidence of taxation, to assert with something of his old hauteur the equality of peers in their legislative character when what he deemed an invidious distinction was made in favour of the Duke of Clarence, to defend the interests of the harassed slave-trader, to emancipate a wife from an incestuous husband, and to oppose the bill for the exclusion of Horne Tooke from the House of Commons. His last speech was in the debate on the peace of Amiens on 4 May 1802, when he absurdly contended that all treaties not expressly renewed were abrogated by the war.

The rest of Thurlow's life was passed between a cottage at Dulwich—the mansion there built for him he would never enter on account of a quarrel with the architect—and various English health resorts. He was frequently to be seen at Brighton, where in the winter of 1805 he was consulted by Sir Samuel Romilly (13 Dec.) in reference to Lady Douglas's charges against the Princess of Wales. He died at Brighton on 12 Sept. 1806, but his remains rest beneath the south aisle of the Temple church, where they were interred with great pomp on 25 Sept. His bust (sculptor unknown), with Latin inscription by Dr. Routh of Magdalen College, Oxford, formerly in the church, now stands neglected in the vestry. In consequence of an early disappointment Thurlow had not married, and the barony of Thurlow of Ashfield died with him; that of Thurlow of Thurlow, Suffolk, descended to his nephew Edward (afterwards Hovell-Thurlow), eldest son of Thomas Thurlow [q. v.], bishop of Durham. By his mistress, Mrs. Hervey, who figures with him in the ‘Rolliad’ (ode xvi.), and to whom he was much attached, he had several children, for whom he provided.

Thurlow's portrait, by Sir Thomas Lawrence, is at Windsor Castle; another by Phillips, painted in 1805, is in the National Portrait Gallery; an unfinished study in the latter collection, apparently from the Windsor Castle portrait, is assigned to Evans. He was also painted by Romney, Reynolds, and Samuel Collings (Loan Exhib. Cat. South Kensington Museum, 1867). Engravings of all except the portrait by Lawrence are at the British Museum and Lincoln's Inn.

Thurlow was tall, well built, and singularly majestic in appearance. His features, though stern, were regular, and a swarthy complexion matched well with his keen black sparkling eyes and bushy eyebrows. He was fond of the company of men of letters, and even Dr. Johnson respected his conversational powers. In ordinary society he affected an extreme bluntness, richly lacing his discourse with oaths and vulgar pleasantries; but he was always subservient to his sovereign and courtly to ladies. On proper occasions he knew how to weep, and was unmanned more than once during the king's illness. Fox's bon mot, ‘No man ever was so wise as Thurlow looks,’ evinces the impression which he made on occasions of state. Though his natural powers were considerable, he was too indolent to master either statecraft or law, and regularly employed Francis Hargrave [q. v.] to prime him with authorities and arguments. The judgments thus composed, which are reported by Brown and Vesey junior, were rarely if ever written, and sometimes by their oracular obscurity were calculated to confound rather than convince. He has been credited with the invention of the restraint on anticipation commonly inserted in married women's settlements; but this is a mere tradition. In politics he seems to have had no principles beyond a high view of the royal prerogative and an aversion to change. Foreign affairs he as far as possible ignored, and commonly went to sleep when they were under discussion at cabinet councils. The ‘majestic sense,’ ascribed to him in Gibbon's ‘Memoirs,’ was an editorial interpolation (, Misc. Works, ed. Sheffield, 1814, i. 222, and Autobiogr. ed. Murray, 1896, p. 310). His reported speeches are chiefly remarkable for the truculence of their invective. His treachery during the king's illness, and subsequent factiousness, deprive him of all title to respect. In his distribution of patronage, if somewhat dilatory, he was on the whole judicious. Both Samuel Horsley [q. v.] and Robert Potter [q. v.] owed stalls to him; and Lloyd Kenyon [q. v.], whom he advanced to the chief-justiceship, amply justified his choice. The Egerton MS. 2232 contains transcripts of his scanty manuscript remains relative to affairs of state.

He never lost the tastes of the scholar, and


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/355

Thurlow late in life corresponded with Cowper on the best English equivalent for the Homeric hexameter, and with Lord Monboddo on the Platonic philosophy, besides rendering one of the choruses of the ‘Hippolytus’ of Euripides' and the whole of the ‘Batrachomyomachia’ into English verse (Hist. MSS. Comm. 4th Rep. App. p. 519, 6th Rep. App. pp. 673, 677;, Chancellors, 4th edit. vii. 298). Though hardly a patron of learning, he made Johnson, with singular delicacy, an offer of the means of travelling on the continent; and Crabbe owed him relief from pecuniary embarrassments. Though probably orthodox in his theological opinions, he resembled a later chancellor, whose merit he early discerned, John Scott, first earl of Eldon [q. v.], in his systematic neglect of the external observances of religion.

[Collins's Peerage, ed. Brydges, viii. 284; Burke's Peerage; G. E. C[okayne]'s Complete Peerage; Blomefield's Norfolk, vii. 25; Carthew's Hundred of Launditch, iii. 362; Gent. Mag. 1762 p. 294, 1806 ii. 882, 975; Ann. Reg. 1782, Chron. p. 238; Notes and Queries, 2nd ser. ii. 67, iii. 283; Inner Temple Books; London Gazette, 2–3 June 1778, 9 April 1783, 12 June 1792; Southey's Life of Cowper, i. 40, 274, ii. 306, iii. 11; Cradock's Mem. i. 71–80; Hayley's Mem. i. 368–70, 446; Lord Kenyon's Life, p. 48; Butler's Reminisc. i. 133; Parr's Works, ed. Johnstone, iii. 170; House of Lords' Cases, 1768–71, p. 119; Cases of the Appellants and Respondents in the Cause of Literary Property before the House of Lords, 1774; Lords' Journ. xxxv. 515; Commons' Journ. xxxix. 685; Parl. Hist. vol. xvi–xxxvi.; Public Characters, 1777; D'Arblay's Diary, 13 Feb., 28 Nov. 1788; Howell's State Trials, xx. 306, 371, 651, 829, 898, 1300; Rose's Diaries, i. 95, ii. 182; Fox's Corresp. ed. Russell, i. 281–8, 308, 331, iv. 475; Fitzmaurice's Life of Shelburne, iii. 385; Lord Minto's Life, i. 102, 239–50, 275, 338, ii. 28, iii. 12, 74, 392; Malmesbury's Diaries, ii. 461, iii. 256, iv. 354; Colchester's Diary; Cornwallis's Corresp.; Auckland's Journ.; Papendiek's Court and Private Life; Wilberforce's Life, ii. 137; Walpole's Letters, ed. Cunningham, Memoirs of George III, ed. Russell Barker, and Journal, ed. Doran; Moore's Life of Sheridan; Sir Samuel Romilly's Mem. ii. 124; Wraxall's Mem. ed. Wheatley; Jerningham Letters, ed. Egerton Castle; Hist. MSS. Comm. 2nd Rep. App. p. 192, 3rd Rep. App. p. 416, 4th Rep. App. p. 519, 6th Rep. App. p. 242, 9th Rep. App. iii. 15, 95, 132, 10th Rep. App. vi. 28–40, 50, 11th Rep. App. vii. 55; Boswell's Johnson, ed. Birkbeck Hill; Gibbon's Misc. Works, ed. 1814, ii. 272, 274; Mathias's Pursuits of Literature, pp. 113, 151; Nichols's Lit. Anecd. and Illustr. Lit.; Brougham's Statesmen, 1st ser. p. 88; Roscoe's Eminent British Lawyers (Cab. Cycl.); Welsby's Judges; Foss's Lives of the Judges; Temple Bar, January 1896, art. by Mr. W. P. Courtney; Addit. MSS. 28063 f. 332, 28068 f. 296, 29145 f. 254, 29169 ff. 148, 353, 29194 ff. 149, 151; Haydn's Book of Dignities, ed. Ockerby.]  THURLOW, afterwards HOVELL-THURLOW, EDWARD, second (1781–1829), minor poet, was first son of Thomas Thurlow [q. v.], bishop of Durham, by Anne, daughter of William Bere of Lymington, Hampshire. Born in the Temple, London, on 10 June 1781, he was educated at the Charterhouse and Magdalen College, Oxford, whence he matriculated on 17 May 1798, and was created M.A. on 16 July 1801. On the death of his uncle, Lord-chancellor Thurlow, he succeeded to the barony of Thurlow of Thurlow, Suffolk, 12 Sept. 1806 [see, first ]; but did not take his seat in the House of Lords until 29 Nov. 1810. In commemoration of the descent of his grandmother from Richard Hovell, esquire of the body to Henry V, he prefixed to Thurlow the additional surname Hovell by royal license dated 8 July 1814.

In accordance with a custom not infrequent in those days, Thurlow was appointed on 30 Dec. 1785 one of the principal registrars of the diocese of Lincoln, and in 1788 clerk of the custodies of idiots and lunatics. To those offices were added those of clerk of the presentations in the petty bag office (1796), patentee of commissions in bankruptcy (1803), and clerk of the Hanaper (1821). He retained them all until his death at Brighton on 4 June 1829.

Thurlow married, at St. Martin's-in-the-Fields on 13 Nov. 1813, an actress of some talent, Mary Catherine (d. 1830), eldest daughter of James Richard Bolton, attorney, by whom he had three sons, of whom Edward Thomas succeeded him in the title.

Thurlow edited for private circulation, London, 1810, 4to, Sir Philip Sidney's ‘Defence of Poesy,’ to which he prefixed some original sonnets, reprinted, with ‘Hermilda,’ an attempt in the manner of Tasso, as ‘Verses on several Occasions,’ London, 1812, 8vo; second enlarged edition entitled ‘Poems on several Occasions,’ 1813, 8vo. He was also author of ‘Ariadne: a poem in three parts,’ 8vo; ‘Carmen Britannicum’ (4to), in honour of the prince regent; and ‘The Doge's Daughter: a poem, with several translations from Anacreon and Horace,’ 8vo (all published at London in 1814); of ‘Select Poems,’ privately printed at Chiswick in 1821 (8vo); and ‘Angelica, or the Rape of Proteus,’ an attempt to continue Shakespeare's ‘Tempest,’ 1822, 8vo.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/356

 He was a frequent contributor to the ‘Gentleman's Magazine,’ in which appeared (April 1813) his ‘Lines on Rogers's Epistle to a Friend,’ somewhat brutally parodied by Byron (Works, ed. 1855, ii. 345). His laboured and affected effusions met with deserved castigation at the hands of Moore (Edinburgh Review, September 1814).

 THURLOW, THOMAS (1737–1791), bishop of Durham, born at Ashfield, Suffolk, in 1737, was second son of Thomas Thurlow, rector of Little Ashfield, Suffolk. Edward Thurlow, first baron Thurlow [q. v.], was his elder brother. Thomas matriculated from Queen's College, Oxford, on 13 July 1754, and was a demy of Magdalen College from 1755 to 1759, when he was elected a fellow. He graduated B.A. on 11 April 1758, M.A. on 9 March 1761, B.D. on 13 April 1769, and D.D. on 23 June 1772. In 1771 he became rector of Stanhope in Durham, and in the following year was appointed master of the Temple. On 2 Nov. 1775 he was nominated dean of Rochester, and on 30 March 1779 he was consecrated bishop of Lincoln. On 13 March 1782 he became dean of St. Paul's, but resigned the office in 1787 on being translated to the see of Durham. He died in Portland Place, London, on 27 May 1791, and was buried in the Temple church. By his wife Anne, daughter of William Bere of Lymington, Hampshire, he left three daughters and a son Edward (1781–1829) [q. v.], who in 1806 succeeded his uncle as second Baron Thurlow. Thomas published a few sermons, but he owed his advancement in the church to the advocacy of his brother rather than to his own ability. He was, however, a zealous patron of literary merit.

 THURMOND, (fl. 1715–1737), actress (whose maiden name was Lewis), was born at Epsom in Surrey, and married John Thurmond the younger, a dancer, in Dublin. John Thurmond, her husband, was, says Chetwood, a good stage dancer, a person of ‘clean head [sic] and a clear heart, and inherits the mirth and humour of his late father.’ He contrived many profitable pantomimes for Drury Lane, and was occasionally trusted with a part (his first speaking part appears to have been Tattle in ‘Love for Love’ on 10 Aug. 1726), but, says Chetwood, ‘left the practice before it left him.’

Mrs. Thurmond's father-in-law, John Thurmond the elder, was acting at the same time and at the same theatres as his son, and played important parts. He was a partner with Thomas Elrington [q. v.] at Smock Alley Theatre, Dublin, where he played Phæax in ‘Timon of Athens.’ He was a popular and convivial man, concerning whom Chetwood tells a comical story, and he died a member of the Drury Lane company. Confusion between father and son is inevitable. It was the father who played Hamlet at Lincoln's Inn Fields, and probably the son who, at the same house, was Scaramouch to the Harlequin of Lun (Rich). The name of Thurmond appears also at Drury Lane to Kent in ‘Lear,’ Julius Cæsar, Balance in the ‘Recruiting Officer,’ Sir E. Belfond in the ‘Squire of Alsatia,’ Brabantio, Saturninus in ‘Titus Andronicus,’ and Portius in ‘Cato.’ His name is frequently on the bills until about 1726.

It is possible that Mrs. Thurmond was first seen on the stage at Dublin. The name of Mrs. Thurmond appears to Ruth in the ‘Committee’ and Evandra in Shadwell's ‘Timon of Athens’ at Smock Alley Theatre (it is possible, however, that her mother-in-law, Mrs. Winifred Thurmond, may here be referred to). On 2 June 1715 dances were given at Lincoln's Inn Fields by Thurmond, jun., ‘just arrived from Ireland,’ and on the 23rd Mrs. Thurmond, ‘who never acted on this stage,’ was the original Cosmelia in the ‘Doting Lovers, or the Libertine Tamed,’ by Newburgh Hamilton, taken in part from ‘The Witty Fair One’ of Shirley. On 8 July she played Portia in Lord Lansdowne's ‘Jew of Venice,’ and on 11 Aug. Julia in Mrs. Behn's ‘False Count.’ At the Lincoln's Inn Fields theatre she remained four years. Among the parts in which she was here seen were Arabella in Charles Johnson's ‘Wife's Relief’ to the Riot of her father-in-law; Corinna in ‘Woman's Revenge, or a Match in Newgate,’ adapted at secondhand by Christopher Bullock from Marston's ‘Dutch Courtezan;’ Belinda in the ‘Provoked Wife;’ Alinda in the ‘Pilgrim;’ Isabella, an original part, in Mrs. Davys's ‘Northern Heiress,’ on 27 April


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/357

 1716; Mrs. Gripe in the ‘Woman Captain;’ Marcella in the ‘Feigned Courtezans;’ Gertrude in ‘Bury Fair;’ Belinda, an original part, in Taverner's ‘Artful Husband,’ on 11 Feb. 1717; Ophelia; Lætitia in the ‘Old Bachelor;’ Victoria in the ‘Fatal Marriage;’ Harriet, an original part, in Taverner's ‘Artful Wife,’ on 3 Dec.; Calista in the ‘Fair Penitent;’ Peg in ‘Sawney the Scot,’ Lacy's adaptation of ‘Taming the Shrew;’ and Arpasia in ‘Tamerlane.’ She was seen in three more original characters—Almeyda in Beckingham's ‘Scipio Africanus’ on 18 Feb. 1718; Julia in Molloy's ‘Coquet, or the English Chevalier,’ on 19 April; and Lady Plotwell in Settle's ‘Lady's Triumph,’ the exact date of which is not known. While at this house she was seen and approved by Booth, Wilkes, and Cibber, the managers of Drury Lane, who decided to engage her at an advanced price; while Booth is said to have been at some pains to instruct her up to a higher pitch in tragedy than she had hitherto attained.

On 8 Nov., as Aspatia in the ‘Maid's Tragedy,’ Mrs. Thurmond made her first appearance at Drury Lane, where she remained until 1732. Principal among the many parts assigned here were Almeria in the ‘Mourning Bride,’ Hypolita in ‘She would and she would not,’ Alcmena in ‘Amphitryon,’ Desdemona, Angelica in ‘Love for Love,’ Lady Macduff, Rutland in the ‘Unhappy Favourite,’ Leonora in ‘Sir Courtly Nice,’ Queen in the ‘Spanish Friar,’ Gertrude in ‘Hamlet,’ Narcissa in ‘Love's Last Shift,’ Portia in ‘Julius Cæsar,’ Ruth in the ‘Committee,’ Imoinda in ‘Oroonoko,’ Epicœne in the ‘Silent Woman,’ Bisarre in the ‘Inconstant,’ Mrs. Conquest in the ‘Lady's Last Stake,’ Sylvia in the ‘Recruiting Officer,’ Arabella in the ‘Fair Quaker,’ Lamira in the ‘Little French Lawyer,’ Evandra in ‘Timon of Athens,’ Cassandra in ‘Cleomenes,’ Termagant in the ‘Squire of Alsatia,’ Widow Taffata in ‘Ram Alley,’ and Lady Wronghead in the ‘Provoked Husband.’

Among many original parts in pieces mostly of little interest the following may be mentioned: Moderna in ‘Chit Chat,’ by Thomas Killigrew the younger [q. v.], on 14 Feb. 1719; Myris in Young's ‘Busiris,’ on 7 March; Virgilia in the ‘Invader of his Country, or the Fatal Resentment’ (Dennis's alteration of ‘Coriolanus’), on 11 Nov.; Widow Headless in Mrs. Centlivre's ‘Artifice,’ on 2 Oct. 1722; Isabella in Steele's ‘Conscious Lovers,’ on 7 Nov.; Celia in ‘Love in a Forest’ (altered from ‘As you like it’ on 9 Jan. 1723); Harriet in Hill's alteration of ‘Henry V,’ on 5 Dec.; Creusa in Johnson's ‘Medea,’ on 11 Dec. 1730; Lætitia in Theophilus Cibber's ‘Lover,’ on 20 Jan. 1731.

On 18 Oct. 1732, as Almeria in the ‘Mourning Bride,’ she made her first appearance at Goodman's Fields, whither she transferred her services owing to some pique with the Drury Lane management. Here also she played Anna Bullen in ‘Virtue Betrayed,’ Polly in the ‘Beggar's Opera,’ Jane Shore, Berinthia in the ‘Relapse,’ Queen Elizabeth in the ‘Unhappy Favourite,’ Lady Charlot in the ‘Funeral,’ Roxana in the ‘Rival Queens,’ Almeria in the ‘Indian Emperor,’ and Germanicus in ‘Britannia.’

Returning to Drury Lane, where she reappeared on 7 Sept. 1734, she added to her repertory Marcia in ‘Cato,’ Queen in ‘Henry VIII’ and in ‘Richard III,’ Clarinda in the ‘Double Gallant,’ Helena (an original part, in Lillo's ‘Christian Hero’), on 13 Jan. 1735; Victoria in the ‘Fatal Marriage,’ Dorinda (an original part in James Miller's ‘Man of Taste’ on 6 March), Lady Graveairs in the ‘Careless Husband,’ Cynthia in the ‘Wife's Relief,’ Lady Brute in the ‘Provoked Wife,’ Lucy Lockit in the ‘Beggar's Opera,’ and Zara in the ‘Mourning Bride.’ The last time her name is traced is on 9 April 1737, as the Queen in Dryden's ‘Spanish Friar.’

‘She had,’ says Chettle, ‘an amiable person and a good voice. She wisely left the bustle and business of the stage in her full and ripe performance, and, at that time, left behind her but few that excelled her.’ Doran flippantly and unjustly calls her a ‘lady utility.’ The parts that she played, when she had to face the formidable competition of actresses such as Mrs. Cibber, Mrs. Pritchard, Mrs. Porter, Mrs. Oldfield, and Kitty Clive, prove her to have stood in the first rank, both in comedy and tragedy. She was also a competent vocalist.

[The chief authority for the Thurmonds is Chetwood's History of the Stage. Information as to the parts they played is gathered from Genest. Hitchcock's Historical View of the Irish Stage; Doran's Annals of the Stage, ed. Lowe; and Davies's Dramatic Miscellanies have also been consulted.]  THURNAM, JOHN (1810–1873), craniologist, son of William Thurnam, by his wife, Sarah Clark, was born at Lingcroft, near York, on 28 Dec. 1810. He belonged to a quaker family. After a private education he became a member of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1834, a licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians in 1843, and a fellow in 1859. He graduated M.D. at the university of Aberdeen in 1846. Having served as resident medical officer in the West-


text:
Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 1 (1897).djvu/38

xxxii variants. Having carefully collated the two editions through-out the first fourteen chapters, I have observed that, in most cases, the changes were made for the sake not of correcting mis-statements of fact, but of improving the turn of a sentence, rearranging the dactyls and cretics, or securing greater accuracy of expression. Some instances may be interesting.