text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/204

Wellesley wreck of the Turkish empire. He sought to undo the effect of this separate negotiation, to make Greece the creation of Europe, not of Russia, to restrict the limits of what he believed would be a 'focus of revolution,' and, above all, not to play into the hands of Russia by weakening Turkey (Desp. 10 Oct. and 15 Dec. 1829; Speeches, 12 Feb. 1830). His solicitude on this last point was inherited by some of those who were most opposed to him at the time, especially Palmerston and Stratford Canning.

George IV died on 26 June, and parliament was dissolved on 24 July. Two days afterwards the July revolution began in Paris, and on 7 Aug. Louis-Philippe was proclaimed king of the French. Wellington had thought Polignac an able man, but he had had nothing to do with the choice of him as minister, as was falsely reported (Desp. 26 Aug.;, i. 275; , ii. 94), and he had strongly objected to the expedition to Algiers. The British government promptly recognised Louis-Philippe, and when the outbreak at Paris was followed by one at Brussels, the first step in the separation of Holland and Belgium, Wellington fell in with the French proposition that England and France should act in concert in tendering advice to the king of the Netherlands. It seemed to him to offer the best chance of escaping war, but he strongly objected to the subsequent development of this policy of joint action (Desp. 3 Sept. and 3 Oct. 1829; Speeches, 26 Jan. and 16 March 1832).

The current of liberalism at home was quickened by its successes abroad, and a large proportion of the members of the new parliament were pledged to retrenchment and reform. Attempts had been made to strengthen the government, especially in the commons, and Wellington offered to retire, to give Peel a free hand in this respect. In the autumn he made overtures to some of the Canningites. Huskisson was killed at the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester railway on 15 Sept. 1830; the accident took place a few moments after he had been in conversation with Wellington. Lamb (who had become Lord Melbourne) and Palmerston declined to join individually; but they and others were willing to join a reconstituted ministry, on the basis of moderate reform, from which Peel and other members of the government were not averse (, i. 211;, ii. 163, 175). But Wellington was not prepared for a second surrender, and when parliament met in November he took the earliest opportunity of declaring himself on this question. He affirmed that the existing system of representation had and deserved the confidence of the country, that no better legislature could be devised, and that as long as, he held office he should oppose any measure of reform (Speeches, 2 Nov. 1830). To a friend who found fault with this uncompromising attitude, he replied: 'I feel no, strength excepting in my character for plain, manly dealing.' He was convinced that the 'moderate reformers' had no firm footing, and that if disfranchisement were once admitted, without proved delinquency, it would be pushed to lengths which would rob the upper classes' of the political influence which they derive from their property, and possibly eventually of the property itself' (Desp. 6 Nov. and 26 Dec. 1830, 14 March 1831). He had no private interest in the matter; 'I have no borough influence to lose, and I hate the whole concern too much to think, of endeavouring to gain any' (ib. 11 April).

Wellington's declaration caused great excitement both in and out of parliament. The funds fell four per cent, next morning, and he was unsparingly denounced (see, ii. 53, 80). The king and ministers were to have dined with the lord mayor on the 9th, but the unpopularity of the government and of Peel's newly formed police made a riot so likely that the royal visit to the city was postponed (Speeches, 8 and 11 Nov.) On the 15th the government was beaten on the civil list and resigned.

The Grey administration was formed, and on 1 March 1831 a drastic reform bill was brought in by Lord John Russell [q. v.] Throughout the year of conflict which followed, Wellington did his utmost to bring about the defeat of a measure which he believed would be the ruin of the country, and to knit together what now began to call itself the conservative party (Desp. 30 May and 15 July; Speeches, 28 March and 4 Oct. 1831). He made light of the threats of mob violence or insurrection: 'I am much more apprehensive of the lingering, but more certain, mischief of revolutionary legislation' (Desp. 27 Oct.) But when he learnt that the Birmingham political union was procuring arms, he wrote to the king, and his letter called forth the proclamation of 22 Nov. He hoped that this proclamation would separate the government from the radicals, and owing to this hope he did not discourage the negotiations which were then beginning between the 'waverers' and the government, though he would be no party to them himself. But he was soon convinced that no substantial concessions would be made, and a week before the second reading of the third Reform Bill was carried in the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/205

 Wellesley lords by help of the waverers, he wrote, 'They have ruined themselves and us' (Desp. 5 and 23 Nov., 7 April; Speeches, 26 March and 19 April 1832).

Seeing that there was no longer any chance of throwing out the bill, he turned his mind at once to mitigating its evils. It was his rule to make the best of circumstances, and he could afford to disregard the charge of swallowing principles for place. William IV, who had so long held on with Grey untired, had begun to hang back, and on his refusal to create peers enough to overcome the opposition in committee, Grey resigned on 9 May. The king consulted Lyndhurst, and sent him to Wellington, and the duke felt bound to make an effort 'to enable the king to shake off the trammels of his tyrannical minister' (Desp. 27 April. 10 May). He consented to take office, either as head or member of an administration pledged to bring in an extensive reform bill. But Peel refused; Manners-Sutton, the speaker, was scared and drew back; and on the 15th Wellington and Lyndhurst informed the king of their failure. To avert the creation of peers, they promised to absent themselves from the further discussions of the bill (Desp. 10-17 May; Speeches, 17 May;, ii. 153-70; , ii. 294-304). Grey resumed office; peers enough followed Wellington's example to allow the bill to pass; and on 7 June it received the royal assent.

The odium incurred by all opponents of the bill fastened especially on Wellington. The windows of Apsley House were broken by the mob on 27 April 1831, three days after the death of the duchess, though her body was still lying there; and they were broken again on 12 Oct. Wellington left them unmended, and subsequently put up iron shutters, which remained till his death. On 18 June 1832 he was threatened by a mob as he was riding home from the mint, and had to take shelter at Lincoln's Inn (Desp. viii. 359;, iv. 62, 196). But his unpopularity did not last long. The university of Oxford, which had created him D.C.L. on 14 June 1814, elected him chancellor on 29 Jan. 1834, and he was received with the wildest enthusiasm when he went there to be installed on 9 June (, ii. 225). His election helped to cause a temporary coolness between him and Peel, who had declined an invitation to stand, but was nevertheless sore on the subject (, ii. 227-37).

Not one-fourth of the members of the reformed House of Commons were conservatives; but the weakness of the opposition lessened the cohesion of the government, and Ireland proved a stumbling-block. In November 1834 Melbourne (who had taken Grey's place in July) laid before the king the difficulties of the situation caused by the removal of Althorp to the lords. William IV seized the opportunity to change his ministers, and sent for Wellington (, ii. 242;, i. 309; , ii. 251). The duke advised that Peel should be prime minister; but Peel was at Rome. Messengers were sent off to him; and, to prevent counter-manœuvres during his absence, the outgoing ministers were called upon to give up their seals. Wellington was sworn in as home secretary on 17 Nov., and was also appointed first lord of the treasury (, ii. 148, 162). For the next three weeks he carried on the government almost alone, in order that Peel might be free to form his own cabinet. He passed from one department to another, and took care that there should be no arrears. Grey complained that he was 'uniting in a manner neither constitutional nor legal the appointments of first lord of the treasury and secretary of state' (, iii. 47), but the country was more amused than irritated. Peel arrived on 9 Dec., and Wellington then became foreign secretary.

The administration, born prematurely, lasted only four months. The election of 1835 strengthened the conservatives, but left parties so balanced that O'Connell's followers could turn the scale; and after three defeats on the Irish church question, Peel resigned on 8 April. Wellington damaged the ministry by choosing Londonderry [see (afterwards ), ] as ambassador at St. Petersburg (Speeches, 16 March;, iii. 225); but though he had disapproved of the foreign policy of Grey and Palmerston, the latter, on returning to the foreign office, wrote: 'The duke has acted with great fairness and honour in his administration of our foreign relations; he has fulfilled with the utmost fidelity all the engagements of the crown, and feeling that the existence of his government was precarious, he made no arbitrary changes in our system of policy' (, i. 318).

Peel and Wellington resumed their former line of conduct in opposition; not trying to turn out the government, but to mend its measures, and to support the whigs against the radicals. They followed this course for six years, though with increasing difficulty as their party gained strength. The conservative majority in the lords was often restive under Wellington, and he himself differed on some questions from Peel,

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


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/138

 on 18 Dec. 1790, and was buried on the north side of Warmington churchyard, in accordance with somewhat singular directions which he had given (ib. p. 412). A marble bust of him by John Hickey, with an inscription, the joint work of Sir Philip Francis and Edmund Burke, was placed in St. Paul's school by his pupils in 1792. The inscription is no longer extant (Notes and Queries, 8th ser. ix. 148).

[Kirby's Winchester Scholars, 1888, p. 233; Gardiner's Admission Registers of St. Paul's School, p. 84; Nichols's Literary Anecdotes, i. 426 n., ix. 251–6; Gent. Mag. 1790 ii. 1153, 1791 i. 30; Athenæum, 29 Sept. 1888; Pauline (St. Paul's School Magazine), xiv. 18–21; Memoirs and Anecdotes of Philip Thicknesse, 1788, i. 7, 8; Parkes and Merivale's Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis, 1867, i. 5.]

THICKNESSE, PHILIP (1719–1792), lieutenant-governor of Landguard Fort, seventh son of John Thicknesse, rector of Farthinghoe, Northamptonshire, who was a younger son of Ralph Thicknesse of Balterley Hall, Staffordshire, was born at his father's rectory on 10 Aug. 1719. His mother, Joyce Blencowe, was niece of Sir John Blencowe [q. v.] George Thicknesse [q. v.] was his elder brother. Another brother, Ralph (d. 1742), was an assistant master at Eton College, and published an edition of ‘Phædrus, with English Notes’ (1741). He died suddenly at Bath on 11 Oct. 1742, while performing a musical piece of his own composition (cf. his epitaph in Gent. Mag. 1790, i. 521).

Another Ralph Thicknesse (1719–1790), cousin to Philip, born at Barthomley, Cheshire, was M.A. of King's College, Cambridge, and M.D., and practised as a medical man at Wigan, where he died on 12 Feb. 1790, aged 71. He wrote a ‘Treatise on Foreign Vegetables’ (1749), chiefly taken from Geoffroy's ‘Materia Medica’ (ib. 1790, i. 185, 272, 399; Journal of Botany, 1890, p. 375).

Philip, after going to Aynhoe school, was admitted a ‘gratis’ scholar at Westminster school. He left that school in a short time to be placed with an apothecary named Marmaduke Tisdall; but he soon tired of that calling, and in 1735, when he was only sixteen, went out to Georgia with General Oglethorpe. Returning to England in 1737, he was employed by the trustees of the colony until he lost Oglethorpe's favour by speaking too plainly of the management of affairs in Georgia. He afterwards obtained a lieutenancy in an independent company at Jamaica, where for some time he was engaged in desultory warfare with the runaway negroes in the mountains. He returned home at the end of 1740 after a disagreement with his brother officers, and in the following January became captain-lieutenant in Brigadier Jeffries's regiment of marines. Early in 1744–5 he was sent to the Mediterranean under Admiral Medley, and passed through a terrible gale near Land's End on 27 Feb. In February 1753 he procured by purchase the lieutenant-governorship of Landguard Fort, Suffolk, an appointment which he held till 1766. He had a dispute in 1762 with Francis Vernon (afterwards Lord Orwell and Earl of Shipbrooke), then colonel of the Suffolk militia; and, having sent the colonel the ludicrous present of a wooden gun, was involved in an action for libel, with the result that he was confined for three months in the king's bench prison and fined 300l. In 1754 he met with Thomas Gainsborough near Landguard Point, and for the next twenty years constituted himself the patron of the artist, of whose genius he considered himself the discoverer. He induced Gainsborough to move to Bath from Ipswich; but in 1774 their friendship was broken by a wretched squabble. About 1766 he settled at Welwyn, Hertfordshire, removing thence to Monmouthshire, and in 1768 to Bath, where he purchased a house in the Crescent, and built another house which he called St. Catherine's Hermitage. His long-cherished hopes of succeeding to 12,000l. from the family of his first wife were destroyed by a decree against him in chancery and by an unsuccessful appeal to the House of Lords. Three letters, in which this decision of the House of Lords was vehemently denounced, appeared in an opposition newspaper, ‘The Crisis,’ on 18 Feb., 25 March, and 12 Aug. 1775 respectively. The first two were signed ‘Junius,’ and appeared while Thicknesse was still in England. The last letter, which had been promised in the second, and was issued after Thicknesse had quitted the country, bore his own name. All were doubtless by Thicknesse, and the use of Junius's name was in all probability an intentional mystification. Thicknesse many years later (1789) issued a pamphlet, ‘Junius Discovered,’ in which he professed to discover Junius in Horne Tooke; but the identification cannot be seriously entertained (information kindly supplied by A. Hall, esq.).

After the House of Lords finally pronounced against Thicknesse in 1775, he, regarding himself as ‘driven out of his own country,’ fixed upon Spain as a place of residence. He returned, however, to Bath at the end of 1776. In 1784 he erected in his


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/278

 270 to show what rich harvests still remain to be gleaned from the folk-memory.

Again, Cinderella has proved not so desirable a choice for the exercise of Miss Cox's industry and skill as might have been desired. Among the most pressing problems that we should like to solve by means of such a collection are: (1) Has there been continued existence of folktales from pre-historic times to the present? (2) Are folktales with "savage" elements necessarily prior to the same without those elements, or have those elements been introduced? (3) Is India the sole or chief source of folktelling?

Now with regard to (1), Cinderella does not happen to be a good type of story to be used as a test. The essence of the tale is the rise in social position of a girl who makes a fortunate marriage. Possibly there are such cases in savage or in pre-historic societies; but the whole conception strikes one as mediaeval, almost as feudal. It would therefore be idle to look for its origin in societies where there was little variation of social position. Dr. Westermarck has indeed shown that girls have more freedom of choice in savage or semi-savage society than we had previously thought. But the monogamous condition which is at the root of the slipper-test does away with the probability that Cinderella arose in any but a tolerably advanced state of civilisation, and consequently its variants do not form a good subject for dealing with, or deciding our first question as to the comparative age and longevity of fairy tales.

Then as regards the vexed question of an Indian origin, Cinderella is specially unfortunate as a test case, since India is essentially a shoeless country, and the characteristic incident of the tale in its present form is the shoe test. We need not therefore be surprised that Miss Cox's collection gives a negative result as regards India. I, for one, have never contended that all fairy tales come from India; and M, Cosquin, in a private communication


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/139

 private grounds at the Hermitage the first monument raised in this country to Chatterton's memory. Five years later he purchased a barn at Sandgate, near Hythe, and converted it into a dwelling-house, whence he could contemplate the shores of France, into which country he made an excursion in 1791, and was in Paris during an early period of the revolution. In the following year he was once more at Bath, which he finally left in the autumn for the continent, and on 19 Nov. 1792 he suddenly died in a coach near Boulogne, while on his way to Paris with his wife. He was buried in the protestant cemetery at Boulogne, where a monument was erected to his memory by his widow (Ipswich Journal, 30 March 1793).

Thicknesse is described by John Nichols (Lit. Anecd. ix. 288) as ‘a man of probity and honour, whose heart and purse were always open to the unfortunate.’ Another writer says ‘he had in a remarkable degree the faculty of lessening the number of his friends and increasing the number of his enemies. He was perpetually imagining insult, and would sniff an injury from afar.’ It is thought that Graves pictured Thicknesse in the character of Graham in the ‘Spiritual Quixote;’ and he is one of the authors pilloried in Mathias's ‘Pursuits of Literature’ (8th edit. p. 71).

He married thrice: first, in 1742, Maria, only daughter of John Lanove of Southampton, a French refugee; she died early in 1749; and on 10 Nov. in the same year he married Elizabeth Touchet, eldest daughter of the Earl of Castlehaven. She died on 28 March 1762, leaving three sons and three daughters. The eldest son succeeded to the barony of Audley. The terms on which Thicknesse lived with this son may be gathered from the title of his ‘Memoirs’ (No. 24, below) and from a clause in his will, wherein he desires his right hand to be cut off and sent to Lord Audley, ‘to remind him of his duty to God, after having so long abandoned the duty he owed to his father.’ His third wife was Anne (1737–1824) [q. v.], daughter of Thomas Ford, whom he married on 27 Sept. 1762. She is separately noticed.

As an author Thicknesse was voluminous and often interesting, especially in his notices of his experiences in Georgia and Jamaica, and on the continent of Europe. His first pieces were contributions to the ‘Museum Rusticum’ (1763). These were followed by: 1. ‘A Letter to a Young Lady,’ 1764, 4to. 2. ‘Man-Midwifery Analysed,’ 1764, 4to. 3. ‘Proceedings of a Court Martial,’ 1765, 4to. 4. ‘Narrative of what passed with Sir Harry Erskine,’ 1766, 8vo. 5. ‘Observations on the Customs and Manners of the French Nation,’ 1766, 8vo; 2nd and 3rd edit. 1779 and 1789. 6. ‘Useful Hints to those who make the Tour of France,’ 1768, 8vo. 7. ‘Account of four Persons starved to Death at Detchworth, Herts,’ 1769, 4to. 8. ‘Sketches and Characters of the most Eminent and most Singular Persons now living,’ 1770, 12mo. 9. ‘A Treatise on the Art of Deciphering and Writing in Cypher, with an Harmonic Alphabet,’ 1772, 8vo. 10. ‘A Year's Journey through France and Part of Spain,’ 1777, 8vo, 2 vols.; 2nd and 3rd edit. 1778 and 1789 (cf., Illustr. of Lit. v. 737). 11. ‘New Prose Bath Guide for the Year 1778,’ 8vo. 12. ‘The Valetudinarian's Bath Guide; or the Means of obtaining Long Life and Health,’ 1780, 8vo. 13. ‘Letters to Dr. Falconer of Bath,’ 1782. 14. ‘Queries to Lord Audley,’ 1782, 8vo. 15. ‘Père Pascal, a Monk of Montserrat, vindicated,’ 1783. 16. ‘The Speaking Figure, and the Automaton Chess Player exposed and detected,’ 1784 (anon.) 17. ‘A Year's Journey through the Pais Bas, and Austrian Netherlands,’ 1784, 8vo; 2nd edit., with additions, 1786. 18. ‘An Extraordinary Case and Perfect Cure of the Gout … as related by … Abbe Man, from the French,’ 1784. 19. ‘A farther Account of l'Abbe Man's Case,’ 1785. 20. ‘A Letter to the Earl of Coventry,’ 1785, 8vo. 21. ‘Letter to Dr. James Makittrick Adair’ [q. v.], 1787, 8vo. 22. ‘A Sketch of the Life and Paintings of Thomas Gainsborough,’ 1788, 8vo. 23. ‘Junius Discovered’ (in the person of Horne Tooke), 1789, 8vo. 24. ‘Memoirs and Anecdotes of Philip Thicknesse, late Lieutenant-governor of Languard Fort, and unfortunately father to George Touchet, Baron Audley,’ 1788–91, 3 vols. 8vo. The third volume contains a portrait. His old enemy Dr. Adair (see No. 21) published ‘Curious Facts and Anecdotes not contained in the Memoirs of Philip Thicknesse,’ 1790, with a caricature portrait by Gillray, who also satirised Thicknesse in a caricature entitled ‘Lieut.-governor Gall-stone, &c.’ (cf. and, James Gillray, pp. 116, 119).

[Nichols's Lit. Anecd. ix. 256; Gent. Mag. 1809 ii. 1012, 1816 ii. 105 (view of Thicknesse's house, Felixstowe Cottage); Monkland's Literature and Literati of Bath, 1854, p. 22; Cheshire Notes and Queries, 1885, v. 49; Fulcher's Life of Gainsborough, 1856, p. 42; Brock-Arnold's Gainsborough, 1881; Hinchliffe's Barthomley, p. 174; G. E. C[okayne]'s Complete Peerage, i. 201; Brit. Mus. Addit. MSS. 19166 ff. 409–13, 19170 ff. 207–9, 19174 ff. 702–3.]


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/279

 Rh to me, points out that he has likewise guarded himself from any assertion of the exclusive Indian origin of folk-tales. I am quite prepared to admit the possibility of India borrowing from Europe, and the locale and character of the three Indian variants (Nos. 25, 235, 307) are sufficient to show the probability of such borrowing in the case of Cinderella. Miss Frere's collection was mainly from an ayah from Goa, whose family had been Christian for several generations; Salsette has long been open to European influence, and so has Bombay.

With regard, however, to the important methodological problem which I have placed second above, Miss Cox's collection has much instruction to give. The very fact that in its inception Cinderella, as we now have it, cannot have arisen in a savage stage of society, renders it certain that the "savage" elements in certain forms of it—animal parentage, dead-mother aid, bones together, and the like—may have been introduced into the story after it had obtained currency, or, if in the original form, may have been introduced as conventional episodes of the folk-tale which had a far more remote origin. The archaeological value of such incidents is accordingly much reduced by such considerations.

One thing, however, comes out quite clearly from Miss Cox's labours, and as it is a thing on which I have insisted throughout my own folk-tale studies, I am naturally jubilant over the result. Here we have 133 variants of type A—the Cinderella type pure and simple—scattered over all the lands of civilisation. Yet no one, I take it, would be prepared to contend that any single one of these was independently created, and was without relationship, cognate or agnate, to any one of the rest. The Borrowing Theory of explaining the similarities in folk-tale plots comes out triumphant as the sole working hypothesis that will explain the same story existing in so many lands. That in this particular case the borrowing is not from India does not affect the general question.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/280

 272 When, however, we come to the question who originated and who borrowed, we come to the problem of problems and the further research to which Miss Cox's labours lead us: hic labor, hoc opus. It would require more time than I could devote to the subject at present, more ingenuity than I could bring to bear on it at any time, to arrive at even an approximate solution of this intricate question. It is, in fact, a case for a European Concert, as indeed Miss Cox's book shows. The folk-lorists of each country might be called upon to determine from their local knowledge and further collections what was the original form in the particular country, and then our problem would be reduced to its simplest elements. We should perhaps be able to determine which was the original form of the tale, and where it exists at the present day in a form closest to the original. Whether this locality could then be fixed upon as the original home of the story would then have to be determined by various criteria. All this, however, is in the future, though, thanks to Miss Cox, it may be no distant future; for the present we may content ourselves with the first reduction of the problem so far as it relates to the British Isles. In other words, what was the original form in which the three types of story dealt with in Miss Cox's book—Cinderella, Catskin, Cap o' Rushes—appeared in these islands?

Before doing so, however, I would venture to point out one aspect of our subject which lends it considerable importance. We have to deal here with various versions of a series of incidents preserved by tradition and reduced to writing after many days. Now this, to compare great things with small, is exactly the problem of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not by any means improbable that folk-tale research, by arriving at the laws governing the transmission of narratives by tradition, may ultimately come to the aid of theological science in determining the relative age of the gospels and settling the amount and character of the alterations undergone by the narratives during the process


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/281

 Rh of tradition. But this is a digression, and we must again turn to the particular case of folk-tradition we have before us in the diffusion of tales of the Cinderella type through Great Britain and Ireland.

A. "Cinderella, or the Fortunate Marriage of a despised Scullery-maid by aid of an Animal Godmother through the Test of a Slipper"—such might be the explanatory title of a chap-book dealing with the pure type of Cinderella. This is represented in Miss Cox's book, so far as the British Isles are concerned, by no less than seven variants, as follows:

(1) Dr. Blind, in Archæological Review, iii, 24-7, "Ashpitel" (from neighbourhood of Glasgow). (2) A. Lang, in Revue Celtique, t. iii, reprinted in, September 1890, "Rashin Coatie" (from Morayshire). (3) Mr. Gregor, in Folk-Lore Journal, ii, 72-4 (from Aberdeenshire), "The Red Calf"—all these in Lowland Scots. (4) Campbell, Popular Tales, No. XLIII, ii, 286 seq., "The Sharp Grey Sheep." (5) Mr. Sinclair, in Celtic Mag., xiii, 454-65, "Snow-white Maiden." (6) Mr. Macleod's variant communicated through Mr. Nutt to Miss Cox's volume, p. 534; and (7) Curtin, Myths of Ireland, pp. 78-92, "Fair, Brown, and Trembling"—these four in Gaelic, the last in Erse. To these I would add (8, 9) Chambers' two versions in ''Pop. Rhymes of Scotland, pp. 66-8, "Rashie Coat," though Miss Cox assimilates them to Type B. Catskin; and (10) a variant of Dr. Blind's version, unknown to Miss Cox, but given in 7 Notes and Queries'', xi, 461.

Now in going over these various versions, the first and perhaps most striking thing that comes out is the substantial agreement of the variants in each language. The English, i.e., Scotch, variants go together; the Gaelic ones agree to differ from the English. I can best display this important agreement and difference by the accompanying two tables, which give, in parallel columns. Miss Cox's abstracts of her tabulations, in which each incident is shortly given in technical phraseology. These abstracts


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/282

 274 have proved fully as useful and valuable as I anticipated in recommending them: it is practically impossible to use the long tabulations for comparative purposes without some such shorthand. For the purpose of our inquiry we will find it more convenient to arrange the incidents vertically, and not, as in Miss Cox's book, finish the tabulation of one story before beginning that of another. By this means we are enabled to display parallelism graphically.

ENGLISH VARIANTS OF "CINDERELLA".


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography. Sup. Vol II (1901).djvu/200

rarely left her house, and agreed with him in absolute indifference to money and to every kind of distinction. She died on 22 Feb. 1898. He performed service in his church on 31 Dec. 1899, and died suddenly while dressing on the following morning. He is buried beside his wife in the churchyard of Booton. They had four sons and one daughter, and were survived by two sons, both of them clergymen.

Elwin's portrait was painted by Weigall and is at Booton. A replica is in the possession of Mr. John Murray, the publisher.

Elwin's articles in the 'Quarterly Review' have never been collected. He worked at the revision of some of them, and left manuscript additions and alterations as well as the commencement of a series of recollections of W. M. Thackeray. His best 'Quarterly Review' articles are those on Gray, Sterne, Goldsmith, the Newcomes, Fielding, Johnson (on whom there are two), and Cowper.

[Works; original letters; personal knowledge.]  EMLY,. [See Monsell, William (DNB01), 1812–1894.]  ERICHSEN, JOHN ERIC (1818–1896), surgeon, born at Copenhagen on 19 July 1818, was the eldest son of Eric Erichsen, banker, of Copenhagen, by his wife, who belonged to the Govett family of Somerset. Erichsen received his early education at the Mansion House, Hammersmith.

He obtained his medical education at University College, Gower Street, and was admitted a member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England on 11 Jan. 1839. He then visited Paris, and after serving as house surgeon at University College Hospital he was appointed, 9 July 1844, joint lecturer on anatomy and physiology at the Westminster Hospital, became joint lecturer on anatomy, 19 Oct. 1846, and was 'paid off' when the site of the Westminster school of medicine was purchased for the Westminster improvements, 22 Aug. 1848. He acted in as secretary of the physiological section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and was afterwards appointed a member of a small committee to undertake an experimental inquiry into the mechanism and effects of asphyxia, and to suggest methods for its prevention and cure. He drew up a report, published in under the title 'An Essay on Asphyxia,' which was rewarded with the Fothergillian gold medal of the Royal Humane Society.

Erichsen was appointed in 1848 assistant surgeon to University College Hospital, in succession to John Phillips Potter [q. v.]; two years later he became full surgeon to the hospital, and professor of surgery in University College; his rapid rise was due to the various quarrels and resignations which followed the death of Robert Listen [q. v.] Erichsen retained the chair of surgery until 1866, when he was appointed Holme professor of clinical surgery. He resigned the office of surgeon in 1875, and was immediately appointed consulting surgeon.

Becoming by examination a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of England on 17 April 1845, Erichsen served as a member of the council, 1869-85; as a member of the court of examiners, 1875-9; vice-president, 1878-9, and president in 1880. He was president of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society, 1879-81, and in 1881 he was president of the surgical section at the meeting in London of the International Medical Congress. As a liberal he contested unsuccessfully in 1885 the parliamentary representation of the united universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1876, and in 1884 the honorary degree of LL.D. was conferred upon him by the university of Edinburgh. In 1877 he was appointed the first inspector under the Vivisection Act, 39 & 40 Vict. cap. 77, and in the same year he was made surgeon-extraordinary to the queen. He was created a baronet in January 1895. But the honour which he chiefly prized was his election in 1887 to the important and dignified post of president of the council of University College, an office he occupied until his death at Folkestone on 23 Sept. 1896; he is buried in Hampstead cemetery. A bust by Mr. Hamo Thornycroft, R. A., presented to Erichsen on his retirement from the hospital, stands in the museum of University College with those of Listen, Quain, and Sharpey. A replica was left to the College of Surgeons by Sir John Erichsen, and stands in the hall of the college.

He married in 1842 Mary Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of Captain Thomas Cole,R.N., who died in 1893. They had no children.

Erichsen's reputation rests less on his practice, which was sound, than on his authorship of a widely read text-book, which inculcated that surgery was a science to be studied rather than an art to be displayed. Early in his career he took up the subject of aneurysm, and contributed several articles dealing with its pathology and treatment; later in life he turned his attention to the ill-understood subject of the effects of railway accidents upon the nervous system.

In 1853 Erichsen published the first


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/140

Thierry THIERRY, CHARLES PHILIP HIPPOLYTUS, (1793–1864), colonist, eldest son of Charles, baron de Thierry, a French refugee, was born in 1793, apparently at Bathampton in Somerset. After some military and diplomatic service he matriculated from Magdalen Hall, Oxford, on 26 May 1819, aged 25, and migrated to Queens' College, Cambridge, on 8 June 1820, but did not graduate. At Cambridge he met in 1820 two Maori chiefs with one Kendall, and then conceived the idea of founding an empire in New Zealand. In 1822 Kendall returned to New Zealand and bought two hundred acres near Hokianga for Thierry, who based on this purchase a claim to all the land from Auckland to the north cape of the north island. He applied to Earl Bathurst, then secretary of state, for confirmation of this grant, but was met with the plea that New Zealand was not a British possession. He then tried the French government without success.

Proceeding to form a private company to carry out his plans, Thierry returned from France in 1826 and set up an office in London, where he slowly acquired some little support. About 1833 he went to the United States to enlarge his sphere of action, and thence by the West Indian islands and Panama he found his way to Tahiti, arriving there in 1835. Here he issued a proclamation asserting his claims and intentions. But the British consul actively opposed his design. In 1837 he had got as far as New South Wales. Here he collected sixty persons of rough character to form the nucleus of a colony, and sailed in the Nimrod to the Bay of Islands. Having summoned a meeting of chiefs at Mangunga, he explained his schemes and his title to the land he claimed; the chiefs refused to recognise his title, and showed alarm at his statement that he expected his brother to follow him with five hundred persons. He also made a formal address to the white residents of New Zealand, in the course of which he announced that he came to govern within the bounds of his own territories, that he came neither as invader nor despot, and proceeded to expound a scheme of settlement and administration which indicated leanings at once communistic and paternal. He stated that he had brought with him a surgeon to attend the poor, and a tutor and governess to educate the settlers' children with his own. But, despite this solemn bravado, Thierry and his party were destitute of supplies beyond the needs of two or three weeks. Ultimately, through the intervention of a missionary, one of the chiefs agreed to sell Thierry some land near Hokianga for 200l. to be paid in kind, blankets, tobacco, fowling-pieces, &c. The rest of his party were drafted into the service of other settlers, and thus his grand scheme ended in his settling down as a humble colonist. New Zealand was proclaimed a British colony in 1840. Later Thierry found his way back to New South Wales, and tried to renew his projects for a larger colonisation scheme; but he had no success, and died on 8 July 1864 at Auckland, a poor man, but much respected as an old colonist. He was married and had a family.

[Mennell's Dict. of Austral. Biogr.; Rusden's History of New Zealand, pp. 179–80; House of Commons Papers 1838, i. 53, 109, 110, &c.; Blair's Cyclopædia of Australasia, Melbourne, 1891; The New Zealander, 4 July and 16 July 1864.]  THIMELBY, RICHARD (1614-1680), jesuit. [See .]

THIRLBY, STYAN (1686?–1753), critic and theologian, son of Thomas Thirlby, vicar of St. Margaret's, Leicester, by his wife Mary, eldest daughter of Henry Styan of Kirby Frith, gentleman, was born about 1686 (, Leicestershire, iv. 239, 614). He was educated at the free school, Leicester, under the tuition of the Rev. John Kilby, the chief usher, who afterwards said: ‘He went through my school in three years; and his self-conceit was censured as very offensive. He thought he knew more than all the school.’ One of his productions while at school was a poem in Greek ‘On the Queen of Sheba's Visit to Solomon.’ From his mental abilities no small degree of future eminence was presaged, but the hopes of his friends were unfortunately defeated by a temper which was naturally indolent and quarrelsome, and by an unhappy addiction to drinking. From Leicester he was sent to Jesus College, Cambridge, whence he graduated B.A. in 1704. He contributed verses in 1708 to the university collection on the death of George, prince of Denmark. In 1710 he published anonymously an intemperate pamphlet on the occasion of the dismissal of the whig ministry. It was entitled ‘The University of Cambridge vindicated from the Imputation of Disloyalty it lies under on account of not addressing; as also from the malicious and foul Aspersions of Dr. Bentley, late Master of Trinity College, and of a certain Officer and pretended Reformer in the said University,’ London, 1710, 8vo (cf., Life of Bentley, 2nd edit. i. 289). Thirlby obtained a fellowship of his college in 1712 by the in-


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/241

 THE FOLK.

URING the discussions which took place some years ago in the Folk-lore Society as to the nature of folk-lore, there was one curious omission. Much was said about what the Folk believed, what the Folk did, and how these sayings and doings of the Folk should be arranged and classified. But very little indeed was said as to what the Folk was that said and did these things, and nothing at all was said as to how they said and did them, and especially as to how they began to say and do them. In short, in dealing with Folk-lore, much was said of the Lore, almost nothing was said of the Folk. I propose to supply that omission so far as the short space at my disposal will allow.

We all know the way in which the currency of a folk-custom is described. "It has arisen among the people"; "it is universally the custom"; "everybody does it or thinks it", and so on. These phrases are adequate enough as far as they go, though even here it is worth while recording that at times the custom is not universal, or has important variations. Thus at times it is unlucky to have a man step over your threshold first in the New Year; at times, horresco referens, it is one of the fairer sex whom the Folk are so ungallant as to taboo on that occasion. At times the first-foot should be of light complexion, at others he should be dark, and so on. So that even for purposes of universal custom we have to split up that mysterious entity, the Folk, into various segments of mutually conflicting opinions.

The Folk is many-headed, it would seem, and often


text:
Page:Federalist, Dawson edition, 1863.djvu/95

Rh


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hypersthene


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/242

234 many-minded, while often it does not know its own mind. That is its present-day aspect when it has nothing to do but to hear and remember. But I am more concerned to come to close quarters with the Folk regarded as originator. For the matter of that, everything must have originated among the Folk, including language, ars conservatrix omnium artium. Yet when we come to realise what we mean by saying a custom, a tale, a myth arose from the Folk, I fear we must come to the conclusion that the said Folk is a fraud, a delusion, a myth. These be bold words to utter in the presence of this honourable assembly of folk-lorists; but, as usual with bold words, they admit of explanation in a parliamentary sense.

Let us try to realise in imagination what must have happened when, for the first time, the saying was uttered that was afterwards to become a proverb, or a tale that was destined to be a folk- or fairy-tale, was first told. Was it the Folk that said the one or told the other? Did the collective Folk assembled in folk-moot simultaneously shout, "When the wine's in, the wit's out", or "Penny wise, pound foolish"? No, it was some bucolic wit, already the chartered libertine of his social circle, who first raised hearty guffaws by those homely pieces of wisdom. The proverbial description of a proverb, "The wisdom of many, the wit of one", recognises that truth. George Eliot in Adam Bede records the process. Mrs. Poyser—her own stepmother, it is said—described Mr. Craig, the Scotch gardener, as "welly like the cock that thinks the sun rose to hear him crow". Later on in the book Parson Irwine refers to the phrase, and calls it as good as Æsop. Production by the local wit, appreciation by the local circle, record by the social observer—of such is the making of proverbs.

Can it have been much different with the initial production of folk-tales? Can we imagine the Folk inventing Cinderella or Puss-in-Boots, or any of the innumerable novelettes of the nursery? The process is unthinkable.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/141

 fluence of Dr. Charles Ashton, who said ‘he had had the honour of studying with him when young,’ though he afterwards spoke of him very contemptuously as the editor of Justin Martyr.

Devoting himself to the study of divinity, he published ‘S. Joannis Chrysostomi de Sacerdotio … editio altera. Accessit S. Gr. Nazianzeni … de eodem Argumento conscripta, Oratio Apologetica, opera S. Thirlby,’ Greek and Latin, Cambridge, 1712, 8vo; ‘An Answer to Mr. Whiston's Seventeen Suspicions concerning Athanasius, in his Historical Preface,’ Cambridge, 1712, 8vo; ‘Calumny no Conviction: or an Answer to Mr. Whiston's Letter to Mr. Thirlby, intituled Athanasius convicted of Forgery,’ London, 1713, 8vo; and ‘A Defence of the Answer to Mr. Whiston's Suspicions, and an Answer to his Charge of Forgery against St. Athanasius,’ Cambridge, 1713, 8vo. On 17 Jan. 1718–19 he was appointed deputy registrary of the university of Cambridge, but he held this office for a very short time (Addit. MS. 5852, ff. 31, 31 a). He took the degree of M.A. at Cambridge in 1720. Two years later he brought out his principal work—a splendid edition of ‘Justini Philosophi et Martyris Apologiæ duæ, et Dialogus cum Tryphone Judæo cum notis et emendationibus,’ Greek and Latin, London, 1722, fol.; dedicated to William, lord Craven. Bishop Monk observes that ‘so violently had resentment got possession of him [Thirlby] that he gives the full reins to invective, and rails against classical studies and Bentley in so extravagant a style that he makes the reader, at the very outset of his work, doubt whether the editor was in a sane mind’ (Life of Bentley, ii. 167). He also treated Meric Casaubon, Isaac Vossius, and Dr. Grabe with contempt.

Having discontinued the study of theology, his next pursuit was medicine, and for a while he was styled ‘doctor.’ While he was a nominal physician he lived for some time with the Duke of Chandos as librarian. He then studied the civil law, on which he occasionally lectured, Sir Edward Walpole being one of his pupils. The civil law displeasing him, though he is said to have become LL.D., he applied himself to the common law, and had chambers taken for him in the Temple with a view of being called to the bar; but of this scheme he likewise grew weary. He came, however, to London, to the house of his friend, Sir Edward Walpole, who procured for him in May 1741 the sinecure office of a king's waiter in the port of London, worth about 100l. a year. The remainder of his days were passed in private lodgings, where he lived in a very retired manner, seeing only a few friends, and indulging occasionally in excessive drinking. He contributed some notes to Theobald's Shakespeare, and afterwards talked of bringing out an edition of his own, but this design was abandoned. He left, however, a copy of Shakespeare, with some abusive remarks on Warburton in the margin of the first volume, and a few attempts at emendation. The copy became the property of Sir Edward Walpole, to whom Thirlby bequeathed all his books and papers. Walpole lent it to Dr. Johnson when he was preparing his edition of Shakespeare, in which the name of ‘Thirlby’ appears as a commentator. Thirlby died on 19 Dec. 1753.

[Addit. MS. 5882, f. 16; Boswell's Johnson (Hill), iv. 161; Bowes's Cat. of English Books; Brüggemann's Engl. Editions of Greek and Latin Authors, pp. 334, 424; Davies's Athenæ Britannicæ, ii. 378; Gent. Mag. 1753 p. 590, 1778 p. 597, 1780 p. 407, 1782 p. 242; Hist. Reg. 1738, Chron. Diary, p. 28; London Mag. July 1738, p. 361; Nichols's Lit. Anecd. i. 238, iv. 264; Nichols's Select Collection of Poems (1781), vi. 114; Whiston's Memoir of himself (1749), i. 204.]

THIRLBY or THIRLEBY, THOMAS (1506?–1570), the first and only bishop of Westminster, and afterwards successively bishop of Norwich and Ely, son of John Thirleby, scrivener and town clerk of Cambridge, and Joan his wife, was born in the parish of St. Mary the Great, Cambridge, in or about 1506 (, Annals of Cambridge, ii. 262). He received his education at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, graduated bachelor of the civil law in 1521, was elected a fellow of his college, and proceeded doctor of the civil law in 1528, and doctor of the canon law in 1530. It is said that while at the university he, with other learned men who were the favourers of the gospel, though they afterwards relapsed, received an allowance from Queen Anne Boleyn, the Earl of Wiltshire, her father, and Lord Rochford, her brother (, Eccl. Mem. i. 279). In 1532 he was official to the archdeacon of Ely (Addit. MS. 5825, p. 36). He appears to have taken a prominent part in the affairs of the university between 1528 and 1534, and is supposed to have held the office of commissary. In 1534 he was appointed provost of the collegiate church of St. Edmund at Salisbury (, Hist. of Sarum, p. 701). Archbishop Cranmer and Dr. Butts, physician to the king, were his early patrons. Cranmer ‘liked his learning and his qualities so well that he became his good lord towards the king's majesty, and commended


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/243

 Rh These little masterpieces of narrative art emanated from an artist, who had the grin of conscious creation on his face as he told Cinderella, Puss-in-Boots, or Rumpelstiltskin for the first time in the world's history. Artistry is individual: that cannot come from the Folk no more than novels can arise spontaneously and simultaneously among the subscribers of Messrs. Mudie and Smith.

Even when it comes to custom, even custom which involves the simultaneous doing of some one thing by two or more persons, we must search for the individual among the Folk, at least for the initiative. The feeling of horror or of worship may be in common, but the expression of that feeling must in the first instance have come from the initiative of an individual. When Northumberland House still existed, one of a sporting turn earned a heavy bet that he would cause a crowd in front of it without apparent cause, He simply stood on the opposite pavement, and stared steadily at the lion that surmounted the edifice. By-and-bye: a crowd collected, all staring at the lion. A myth arose, I have been told, that the lion had been seen to wag his iron tail. But whether that be so or no, the sportsman had won his wager, and incidentally had given an apt illustration of the way in which folk-lore arises. The sportsman initiated the folk-lore, the crowd was the Folk.

Here I am at issue with Dr. Tylor and his followers. They would say that at a certain stage of social culture it would be natural for all men in all countries to look at lions that did not wag their tails on tops of conspicuous buildings. Even then I would contend it needs some one to begin the staring before the crowd collects, even though it is the crowd that makes the Folk and constitutes the staring folk-lore. If I heard of the same joke being played at Paris or Berlin, I should feel inclined to bet that it had been played by one who had heard of him who had twisted the tail of the Northumberland House lion.

You see where I am pointing. The Folk is simply a


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/142

 him to him, to be a man worthy to serve a prince, for such singular qualities as were in him. And indeed the king soon employed him in embassies in France and elsewhere: so that he grew in the king's favour by the means of the archbishop, who had a very extraordinary love for him, and thought nothing too much to give him or to do for him.’

In 1533 he was one of the king's chaplains, and in May communicated to Cranmer ‘the king's commands’ relative to the sentence of divorce from Catherine of Arragon. In 1534 he was presented by the king to the archdeaconry of Ely, and he was a member of the convocation which recognised the king's supremacy in ecclesiastical matters. Soon afterwards he was appointed dean of the chapel royal, and in 1536 one of the members of the council of the north. On 29 Sept. 1537 the king granted to him a canonry and prebend in the collegiate church of St. Stephen, in the palace of Westminster (Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, xii. 350), and on the 15th of the following month he was present at the christening of Prince Edward (afterwards Edward VI) at Hampton Court (ib. xii. 320, 350). On 2 May 1538 a royal commission was issued to Stephen Gardiner, Sir Francis Brian, and Thirlby, as ambassadors, to treat with Francis I, king of France, not only for a league of friendship, but for the projected marriage of the Princess Mary to the Duke of Orleans (Harl. MS. 7571, f. 35; Addit. MS. 25114, f. 297). The three ambassadors were recalled in August 1538. Thirlby was one of the royal commissioners appointed on 1 Oct. 1538 to search for and examine anabaptists (, Concilia, iii. 836). On 23 Dec. 1539 he was presented to the mastership of the hospital of St. Thomas à Becket in Southwark, and on 14 Jan. 1539–1540 he surrendered that house, with all its possessions, to the king. At this period he was prebendary of Yeatminster in the cathedral church of Salisbury, and rector of Ribchester, Lancashire. In 1540 he was prolocutor of the convocation of the province of Canterbury, and signed the decree declaring the nullity of the king's marriage with Anne of Cleves. In the same year he was one of the commissioners appointed by the king to deliberate upon sundry points of religion then in controversy, and especially upon the doctrine of the sacraments.

By letters patent dated 17 Dec. 1540 the king erected the abbey of Westminster into an episcopal see, and appointed Thirlby the first and, as it happened, the last bishop of the new diocese. He was consecrated on 29 Dec. in St. Saviour's Chapel in the cathedral church of Westminster (, Cranmer, p. 90). Soon afterwards he was appointed by the convocation to revise the translation of the epistles of St. James, St. John, and St. Jude. In January 1540–1 he interceded with the crown for the grant of the university of the house of Franciscan friars at Cambridge. In 1542 he appears as a member of the privy council, and was also despatched as ambassador to the emperor in Spain (Acts P. C. ed. Dasent, vol. i. passim). He returned the same year. In April 1543 he took part in the revision of the ‘Institution of a Christian Man,’ and on 17 June in that year he was one of those empowered to treat with the Scots ambassador concerning the proposed marriage of Prince Edward with Mary Queen of Scots. In May 1545 he was despatched on an embassy to the emperor, Charles V (State Papers, Hen. VIII, x. 428). He attended the diet of Bourbourg, and on 16 Jan. 1546–7 he was one of those who signed a treaty of peace at Utrecht (, xv. 120–1). He was not named an executor by Henry VIII, and consequently was excluded from Edward VI's privy council. He remained at the court of the emperor till June 1548, taking leave of Charles V at Augsburg on the 11th (Cal. State Papers, For. i. 24). Thirlby took part in the important debates in the House of Lords in December 1548 and January 1548–9 on the subject of the sacrament of the altar and the sacrifice of the mass. He declared that ‘he did never allow the doctrine’ laid down in the communion office of the proposed first Book of Common Prayer, stating that he mainly objected to the book as it stood because it abolished the ‘elevation’ and the ‘adoration’ ( and, Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer, pp. 162, 164, 166, 167, 171, 256, 263, 403, 404, 427). When Somerset expressed to Edward VI some disappointment at Thirlby's attitude, the young king remarked, ‘I expected nothing else but that he, who had been so long time with the emperor, should smell of the Interim’ (Original Letters, Parker Soc. ii. 645, 646). He voted against the third reading of the act of uniformity on 15 Jan. 1548–9, but enforced its provisions in his diocese after it had been passed. On 12 April 1549 he was in the commission for the suppression of heresy, and on 10 Nov. in that year he was ambassador at Brussels with Sir Philip Hoby and Sir Thomas Cheyne. On 29 March 1550 Thirlby resigned the bishopric of Westminster into the hands of the king, who thereupon dissolved it, and reannexed the county of Middlesex, which had been assigned for its diocese, to the see of London (, Hist. of Ely, p. 191). While bishop of Westminster he is said to


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/244

 236 name for our ignorance: we do not know to whom a proverb, a tale, a custom, a myth owes its origin, so we say it originated among the Folk. The author of the myth of Cronus, of the tale of Medea and Jason, was a Great Unknown; "the world knows nothing of its greatest men." The Folk is a publishing syndicate that exploits the productions of that voluminous author, Anon. We have under our very noses a pertinent example of what is always going on. During the last fifteen years or so, the Folk-lore Society has been doing much for the science, and great has been the fame of the Council thereof. But I think we could all of us point out the one or two men who have initiated, and in large measure carried out that work. Yes, I repeat it, the Folk is a fraud, a delusion, a myth.

"Yes," you will say, "all that is very pretty, and tolerably obvious, especially now that you have pointed it out. But what of it? What is the practical application of the consideration?" Well, in the first place, it would be well to realise the individual initiative in discussing origins, and we are chiefly interested in origins nowadays. When we find similar customs in far-distant lands, we shall find it more difficult to suppose them to have originated independently, if we have to recognise that they arose with individuals. The probabilities of borrowing are much greater if this fact is recognised. Even assuming that the same story or custom could have originated independently, if we had all time to deal with, it becomes more difficult to do so when prehistoric time is, comparatively speaking, limited. The custom of junior right, say, could have independently arisen in England, if England had been isolated for all time. But if England is in culture-contact, mediate or immediate, with countries where junior right exists, it becomes a race between independent origin and borrowing; and to assume independent origin is to bet against the bank of Time with its unlimited means.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/245

 Rh Again, we shall have to go more minutely into the modus operandi of tradition if this conception of individual origin of folk-lore be firmly grasped. Just at present, we are content to say such and such a creation is spread from John-o'-Groat's to Land's End. The assumption is usually made, if only implicitly, that it arose independently in all the places of its occurrence, owing to the similarity of social conditions and the like. From the new stand-point we shall want to know how it thus spread, and where it took its rise, since from that standpoint it must have originated in one mind in one spot. And when we learn how it spreads in one country, we may get to know how it spreads from one country to another.

Again, from our individualistic standpoint we shall have to break down the rather hard and fast line we draw between folk-lore and literature. While a story passes per ora virum we call it folk-lore, the moment it gets written down we call it literature, and it ceases to have interest for us quá folk-lorists. I cannot recognise any such hard and fast distinction. Books are but so many telephones preserving the lore of the Folk, or more often burying it and embalming it. For, after all, we are the Folk as well as the rustic, though their lore may be other than ours, as ours will be different from that of those that follow us.

And finally, recognising this initiative among the Folk, and breaking down the distinction between the Folk of the past and of the present, we shall be able to study the lore of the present with happy results, I am sure, for our study of the lore of the past. Survivals are folk-lore, but folk-lore need not be all survivals. We ought to learn valuable hints as to the spread of folk-lore by studying the Folk of to-day. The music-hall, from this point of view, will have its charm for the folk-lorist, who will there find the Volkslieder of to-day. The spread of popular sayings, even the rise of new words, provided they be folk-words, should be regarded as a part of the study of folk-lore. It would be


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/143

 have ‘impoverished the church’ (, Survey of London, ed. Thoms, p. 170).

On 1 April, following his resignation of the see of Westminster, he was constituted bishop of Norwich (, Fœdera, xv. 221). Bishop Burnet intimates that Thirlby was removed from Westminster to Norwich, as it was thought he could do less mischief in the latter see, ‘for though he complied as soon as any change was made, yet he secretly opposed everything while it was safe to do’ (Hist. of the Reformation, ed. 1841, ii. 753). In January 1550–1 he was appointed one of the commissioners to correct and punish all anabaptists, and such as did not duly administer the sacraments according to the Book of Common Prayer; and on 15 April 1551 one of the commissioners to determine a controversy respecting the borders of England and Scotland. On 20 May following he was in a commission to treat for a marriage between the king and Elizabeth, daughter of Henry II of France. He was in 1551 appointed one of the masters of requests, and he was also one of the numerous witnesses on the trial of Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, which took place in that year. In January and March 1551–2 his name was inserted in several commissions appointed to inquire what sums were due to the king or his father for sale of lands; to raise money by the sale of crown lands to the yearly value of 1,000l.; and to survey the state of all the courts erected for the custody of the king's lands. In April 1553 he was again appointed ambassador to the Emperor Charles V, at whose court he remained until April 1554 (Acts P. C. iv. 246, 390). On his return from Germany he brought with him one Remegius, who established a paper mill in this country—perhaps at Fen Ditton, near Cambridge (, Annals, ii. 132, 265).

At heart a Roman catholic, Thirlby was soon high in Queen Mary's favour, and in July 1554 he was translated from Norwich to Ely, the temporalities of the latter see being delivered to him on 15 Sept. (, xv. 405). He was one of the prelates who presided at the trials of Bishop Hooper, John Rogers, Rowland Taylor, and others, for heresy; and in February 1554–5 he was appointed, together with Anthony Browne, viscount Montague [q. v.], and Sir Edward Carne [q. v.], a special ambassador to the pope, to make the queen's obedience, and to obtain a confirmation of all those graces which Cardinal Pole had granted in his name. He returned to London from Rome on 24 Aug. 1555 with a bull confirming the queen's title to Ireland, which document he delivered to the lord treasurer on 10 Dec. A curious journal of this embassy is printed in Lord Hardwicke's ‘State Papers’ (i. 62–102, from Harleian MS. 252, art. 15).

After the death of the lord chancellor, Gardiner, on 12 Nov. 1555, Mary proposed to confer on Thirlby the vacant office, but Philip objected, and Archbishop Heath was appointed (Despatches of Michiel, the Venetian Ambassador, 1554–7, ed. Paul Friedmann, Venice, 1869). In January 1555–6 Thirlby took a part in the degradation of his old friend Archbishop Cranmer. ‘He was observed to weep much all the while; he protested to Cranmer that it was the most sorrowful action of his whole life, and acknowledged the great love and friendship that had been between them; and that no earthly consideration but the queen's command could have induced him to come and do what they were then about’ (, i. 531). On 22 March following he was one of the seven bishops who assisted at the consecration of Cardinal Pole as archbishop of Canterbury. In 1556 he was appointed to receive Osep Napea Gregoriwitch, ambassador from the emperor of Russia. Thirlby appears to have sanctioned the burning of John Hullier for heresy in 1556, but only two others suffered death in his diocese on account of their religion, and it has been said that ‘Thirleby was in no way interested therein; but the guilt thereof must be shared between Dr. Fuller, the chancellor, and other commissioners’ (, Church Hist. ed. 1837, i. 395). In April 1558 Thirlby was sent to the north to inquire the cause of the quarrel between the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland. He and Dr. Nicholas Wotton [q. v.] were Queen Mary's commissioners to treat with France respecting the restoration of Calais and the conclusion of peace. Queen Elizabeth sent a new commission to them at Cambray in January 1558–9, and instructed the Earl of Arundel to act in conjunction with them. The commissioners succeeded in concluding peace, and returned home in April 1559. The queen is said to have cast upon Thirlby the entire blame of the eventual loss of Calais (, Life of Whitgift, i. 229). Queen Mary had appointed him one of her executors.

On the assembling of Queen Elizabeth's first parliament Thirlby sent his proxy, he being then absent on his embassy in France. On 17 April 1559 the bill for restoring ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the crown was committed to him and other peers. He opposed this measure on the third reading. He also dissented from the bill for uniformity of common prayer (cf. Zurich Letters, i. 20). He refused to take the oath of supremacy, and for this reason he and Archbishop Heath


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography. Sup. Vol II (1901).djvu/201

 of the 'Science and Art of Surgery,' which appeared in one volume containing 950 pages and about 250 illustrations. The fifth edition was issued in 1869 in two volumes. The eighth and ninth editions were published with the help of Marcus Beck (1843–1893), while the tenth edition in 1895 was edited by Raymond Johnson. A copy of a pirated edition was issued by the American government to every medical officer in the federal army during the American civil war. It was translated into German by Dr. Thudichum of Halle; into Italian by Dr. Longhi of Milan, and into Spanish by Drs. Benavente and Ribera. Other works by Erichsen were: 2. 'A Practical Treatise on Diseases of the Scalp,' London, 1842, 8vo. 3. 'Observations on Aneurism,' London, 1844, 8vo. 4. 'On Railway and other Injuries of the Nervous System,' London, 1866, 8vo. 5. 'On Hospitalism, and the Causes of Death after Operation,' London, 1874, 12mo. 6. 'On Concussion of the Spine, Nervous Shock, and other obscure Injuries of the Nervous System in their Clinical and Medico-legal Aspects.'

[Obituary notices in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, 1897, vol. lxi.; Lancet, 1896, ii. 962; Brit. Med. Journ. 1896, ii. 885; Times, Sept. 1896; personal knowledge; additional information kindly given by Dr. R. G. Hebb and Christopher Heath, esq., F.R.C.S. Engl.]  ERPINGHAM, THOMAS (1357–1428), soldier, born in 1357, was son of Sir John Erpingham, who died on 1 Aug. 1370, and was buried in Erpingham church, Norfolk. The family claimed to have been settled at Erpingham from the time of the Conqueror (, Norfolk, vi. 412-413), but the earliest to be lord of the manor of Erpingham was Robert, who lived in the middle of the thirteenth century. A later Robert de Erpingham, probably grandfather of Sir Thomas, represented Norfolk in the parliaments of 1333-4, 1335, and 1341 (Official Return, i. 103, 107, 134). Sir John had, like his son, a house in Norwich, where he mainly resided.

Thomas, who was only thirteen years old at his father's death, was early trained in the profession of arms. In 1380 he was in the service of John of Gaunt, and by an indenture dated at York on 13 Sept. of that year he stipulated for 20l. a year in time of peace and fifty marks in war for himself and a servant, together with the 'usual wages of the bachelors of his sort.' On 8 March 1381-2 he was appointed one of the commissioners to suppress rebellions in Norfolk, and on 21 Dec. following his name occurs in a similar commission for Middlesex. In January 1384-5 he was made commissioner of array in Norfolk in view of the anticipated French invasion, and he constantly served on commissions of the peace in the same county (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1381-5, passim). In March 1386 he obtained letters of protection on setting out with John of Gaunt for Spain, and sailed from Plymouth on 7 July. In 1390 Erpingham accompanied John of Gaunt's son Henry, earl of Derby (afterwards Henry IV), on his expedition to Lithuania, sailing from Boston on 20 July; and in July 1392, when Henry started on his second journey to Lithuania, Erpingham again went with him. On 23 Sept. Henry sent home most of his followers from Danzig, but Erpingham remained with him, and accompanied him on his adventurous passage across Europe into Palestine. He received various payments from the duchy of Lancaster for his services, and was also granted lands near King's Lynn, Norfolk.

When Henry was banished in 1398 Erpingham was once more his companion in his travels abroad; he was with him at Paris in 1399 and witnesssed the agreement for mutual support and defence which Henry drew up with Louis, duke of Orleans, on 17 June (, Pièces inedites sur le règne de Charles VI, i. 157-60). He landed with Henry at Ravenspur in July 1399, and on 30 Sept. he was appointed constable of Dover Castle. By the parliament that met on that day Erpingham was nominated one of the commissioners for receiving Richard II's resignation of the crown (Rot. Parl. iii. 416, 422). On 5 Nov. he was made warden of the cinque ports, and soon after he was granted custody of the lands of Thomas, duke of Norfolk. In the following January he attended convocation to promise the king's help, and advocate some decided action, in putting down the Lollards (, Lancaster and York, i. 32). His selection for this task was singular, as he was himself inclined to lollardy, and was a friend of Sir John Oldcastle (, iii. 295). In the same month Erpingham was associated with John Beaufort, first earl of Somerset [q. v. Suppl.], in the command against the degraded lords who had revolted against Henry IV; and at the end of the month he was one of the commissioners appointed to try the rebels. Before the end of 1400 he was elected K.G., and was made chamberlain of the king's household.

In November 1401 Erpingham was selected to accompany Henry's second son, Thomas, as one of his 'wardens,' to Ireland, landing at Dublin on 13 Nov. [see


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/246

 238 interesting in this connection to find out and put on record the whole folk-lore of a single person, so as to ascertain how far contradictory conceptions can coexist in the popular mind.

Thus, I think that at any rate in our study of folk-lore we should pay attention not alone to the Lore, but also to the Folk.

.


text:
Page:Avon Fantasy Reader 10.djvu/95

 for my slowness of comprehension. "Merely relativity. It doesn't take much physical effort to make the moon move through the treetops, does it? Just enough to walk down the garden path."

I stared at him and he continued:

"If you had been born and raised on a moving train, no one could convince you that the landscape was not in rapid motion. Well, our conception of the universe is quite as relative as that. Sir Issac Newton tried mathematics to express a universe as though beheld by an infinitely removed and perfectly fixed observer. Mathematicians since his time, realizing the futility of such an effort, have taken into considertation that what things 'are' depends upon the person who is looking at them. They have tried to express common knowledge, such as the law of gravitation, in terms that would hold good for all observers. Yet their leader and culminating genius, Einstein, has been unable to express knowledge in terms of pure relativity; he has had to accept the velocity of light as an arbitrarily fixed constant. Why should the velocity of light be any more fixed and constant than any other quantity in the universe?

"But, what's that got to do with going into the fourth dimension? I broke in impatiently.

He continued as though I hadn't spoken.

"The thing that interests us now, and that mystifies modern mathematicians, is the question of movement, or more accurately: translation. Is there such a thing as absolute translation? Can there be movement—translation—except in relation to something else than the thing that moves? All movement we know of is movement in relation to other objects, whether it be a walk down the street, or the movement of the earth in its orbit around the sun. A change of relative position. But the mere translation of an isolated object existing alone in space is mathematically inconceivable; for there is no such thing as space in that sense."

"I thought you said something about going into another universe—" I interrupted again.

You can't argue with Woleshensky. His train of thought went on without a break.

"By translation we understand getting from one place to another. 'Going somewhere' originally meant a movement of our bodies. Yet, as a matter of fact, when we drive in an automobile, we 'go somewhere' without moving our bodies at all. The scene is changed around us; we are somewhere else; and yet we haven't moved at all.

"Or suppose you could cast off gravitational attraction for a moment and let the earth rotate under you; you would be going somewhere, and yet not moving—"

"But that is theory; you can't tinker with gravitation—"

"Every day you tinker with gravitation. When you start upwards in an elevator, your pressure, not your weight, against the floor of it is increased; apparent gravitation between you and the floor of the elevator is greater

title: Page:Avon Fantasy Reader 10.djvu/95


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/144

 were deposed from their sees on 5 July 1559 at the lord-treasurer's house in Broad Street.

According to Bentham, Thirlby was a considerable benefactor to the see of Ely because by his interest he procured from the crown for himself and his successors the patronage of the prebends in the cathedral; but Dr. Cox, his immediate successor, asserted that although Thirlby received 500l. from Bishop Goodrich's executors for dilapidations, he left his houses, bridges, lodes, rivers, causeways, and banks, in great ruin and decay, and spoiled the see of a stock of one thousand marks, which his predecessors had enjoyed since the reign of Edward III. He also alleged that Thirlby never came into his diocese (, Annals of the Reformation, ii. 580).

After his deprivation Thirlby had his liberty for some time, but in consequence of his persisting in preaching against the Reformation, he was on 3 June 1560 committed to the Tower, and on 25 Feb. 1560–1 he was excommunicated (, ib. i. 142). In September 1563 he was removed from the Tower on account of the plague to Archbishop Parker's house at Beaksbourne (Parker Correspondence, pp. 122, 192, 195, 203, 215, 217). In June 1564 he was transferred to Lambeth Palace, and Parker, who is said to have treated Thirlby with great courtesy and respect, even permitted him to lodge for some time at the house of one Mrs. Blackwell in Blackfriars. He died in Lambeth Palace on 26 Aug. 1570. He was buried on the 28th in the chancel of Lambeth church, under a stone with a brief Latin inscription in brass (, Survey of London, ed. Strype, App. p. 85). In making a grave for the burial of Archbishop Cornwallis in March 1783, the body of Bishop Thirlby was discovered in his coffin, in a great measure undecayed, as was the clothing. The corpse had a cap on its head and a hat under its arm (, Illustrations of British History, ed. 1838, i. 73 n.) His portrait is in the print of the delivery of the charter of Bridewell.

 THIRLESTANE, MAITLAND. [See, 1545 P-1595.]

THIRLWALL, CONNOP (1797–1875), historian and bishop of St. David's, born in London on 11 Feb. 1797, was third son of the Rev. Thomas Thirlwall, by his wife, Mrs. Connop of Mile End, the widow of an apothecary. His full name was Newell Connop Thirlwall.

The father, (d. 1827), was the son of Thomas Thirlwall (d. 1808), vicar of Cottingham, near Hull, who claimed descent from the barons of Thirlwall Castle, Northumberland. The younger Thomas, after holding some small benefices in London, was presented in 1814 to the rectory of Bower's Gifford in Essex, where he died on 17 March 1827. He was a man of fervent piety, and the author of several published works, including ‘Diatessaron seu integra Historia Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ex quatuor Evangeliis confecta,’ London, 1802, 8vo (Gent. Mag. 1827, i. 568).

Connop Thirlwall showed such precocity that when he was only eleven years of age his father published a volume of his compositions called ‘Primitiæ,’ a work in after years so odious to the author that he destroyed every copy that he could obtain. The preface tells us that ‘at a very early period he read English so well that he was taught Latin at three years of age, and at four read Greek with an ease and fluency which astonished all who heard him. His talent for composition appeared at the age of seven.’ From 1810 to 1813 he was a day scholar at the Charterhouse. After leaving school he seems to have worked alone (Letters, &c., p. 21) for a year, entering Trinity College, Cambridge, as a pensioner in October 1814.

While an undergraduate he found time to learn French and Italian, and, besides acquiring considerable reputation as a speaker at the union, was secretary of the society


text: Page:The Celtic Review volume 5.djvu/10

title: Page:The Celtic Review volume 5.djvu/10


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/145

 when the debate was stopped by the entrance of the proctors (24 March 1817), who, by the vice-chancellor's command, bade the members disperse and on no account resume their discussions. A few years later, when Thirlwall spoke at a debating society in London, John Stuart Mill recorded that he was the best speaker he had heard up to that time, and that he had not subsequently heard any one whom he could place above him (Autobiography, p. 125). In 1815 he obtained the Bell and Craven scholarships, and in 1816 was elected scholar of his own college. In 1818 he graduated B.A. He was twenty-second senior optime in the mathematical tripos, and also obtained the first chancellor's medal for proficiency in classics. In October of the same year he was elected fellow of his college.

Thirlwall was now able to realise what he called ‘the most enchanting of my day-dreams’ (Letters, &c., p. 32), and spent several months on the continent. The winter of 1818–19 was passed in Rome, where he formed a close friendship with Bunsen, then secretary to the Prussian legation, at the head of which was Niebuhr; but Thirlwall and the historian never met.

Thirlwall had at this time conceived a dislike to the profession of a clergyman, and, yielding to the urgency of his family (ib. p. 60), he entered Lincoln's Inn in February 1820. He was called to the bar in the summer of 1825. Much of his success in after life may be traced to his legal training; but the work was always distasteful to him, though relieved by foreign tours, by intellectual society, and by a return to more congenial studies whenever he had a moment to spare (ib. p. 67). In 1824 he translated two tales by Tieck, and began his work on Schleiermacher's ‘Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke.’ Both these were published (anonymously) in the following year, the second with a critical introduction, remarkable not only for thoroughness, but for acquaintance with modern German theology, then a field of research untrodden by English students. In October 1827 Thirlwall abandoned law and returned to Cambridge (ib. p. 54). The prospect of the loss of his fellowship at Trinity College, which would have expired in 1828, probably determined the precise moment for taking a step which he had long meditated (ib. pp. 69, 70, 86). He was ordained deacon before the end of 1827, and priest in 1828.

At Cambridge Thirlwall at once undertook his full share of college and university work. Between 1827 and 1832 he held the college offices of junior bursar, junior dean, and head lecturer; and in 1828, 1829, 1832, and 1834 examined for the classical tripos. In 1828 the first volume of the translation of Niebuhr's ‘History of Rome’ appeared, the joint work of himself and [q. v.] This was attacked in the ‘Quarterly Review,’ and Thirlwall contributed to Hare's elaborate reply a brief postscript which is worthy of his best days as a controversialist. In 1831 the publication of ‘The Philological Museum’ was commenced with the object of promoting ‘the knowledge and the love of ancient literature.’ Hare and Thirlwall were the editors, and the latter contributed to it several masterly essays (reprinted in Essays, &c., 1880, pp. 1–189). It ceased in 1833. In 1829 Thirlwall held for a short time the vicarage of Over, and in 1832, when Hare left college, he was appointed assistant tutor on the side of [q. v.] His lectures were as thorough and systematic as Hare's had been desultory.

In 1834 his connection with the educational staff of Trinity College was rudely severed under the following circumstances. A bill to admit dissenters to university degrees had in that year passed the House of Commons by a majority of eighty-nine. The question caused great excitement at Cambridge, and several pamphlets were written to discuss particular aspects of it. The first of these, called ‘Thoughts on the admission of Persons, without regard to their Religious Opinions, to certain Degrees in the Universities of England,’ by Dr. [q. v.], was promptly answered by Thirlwall in a ‘Letter on the Admission of Dissenters to Academical Degrees.’ His opponent tried to show the evils likely to arise from a mixture of students differing widely from each other in their religious opinions by tracing the history of the theological seminary for nonconformists at Daventry. Thirlwall argued that at Cambridge ‘our colleges are not theological seminaries. We have no theological colleges, no theological tutors, no theological students;’ and, further, that the colleges at Cambridge were not even ‘schools of religious instruction.’ In the development of this part of his argument he condemned the collegiate lectures in divinity and the compulsory attendance at chapel, with ‘the constant repetition of a heartless mechanical service.’ This pamphlet is dated 21 May 1834, and five days later Dr. [q. v.], master, wrote to the author, calling upon him to resign his appointment as assistant-tutor. Thirlwall obeyed without delay; and, as the master had added that he found ‘some difficulty in


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/146

Thirlwall understanding how a person with such sentiments can reconcile it to himself to continue a member of a society founded and conducted on principles from which he differs so widely,’ Thirlwall addressed a circular letter to the fellows, asking each of them to send him ‘a private explicit and unreserved declaration’ on this point. All desired to retain him, but all did not acquit him of rashness; and a few did not condemn the master's action.

Not long after these events—in November 1834—Lord Brougham offered him the valuable living of Kirby Underdale in Yorkshire. He accepted without hesitation, and went into residence in July 1835. He had had little experience of parochial work, but he proved himself both energetic and successful in this new field (Letters, &c., p. 133).

It was at Kirby Underdale that Thirlwall completed his ‘History of Greece,’ originally published in the ‘Cabinet Cyclopædia’ of Dr. Dionysius Lardner [q. v.] This work entailed prodigious labour. At Cambridge, where the first volume was written, he used to work all day until half-past three o'clock, when he left his rooms for a rapid walk before dinner, then served in hall at four; and in Yorkshire he is said to have passed sixteen hours of the twenty-four in his study. The first volume appeared in 1835 and the eighth and last in 1844. By a curious coincidence he and George Grote [q. v.], his friend and schoolfellow, were writing on the same subject at the same time unknown to each other. On the appearance of Grote's first two volumes in 1846 Thirlwall welcomed them with generous praise (Letters, p. 194), and when the publication of the fourth volume in 1847 enabled him to form a maturer judgment, he told the author that he rejoiced to think that his own performance would, ‘for all highest purposes, be so superseded’ (Personal Life of Grote, p. 173). Grote in the preface to his work bore testimony to Thirlwall's learning, sagacity, and candour. Portions of Thirlwall's history were translated into German by Leonhard Schmitz in 1840, and into French by A. Joanne in 1852.

In 1840 Lord Melbourne offered the bishopric of St. David's to Thirlwall. He had read his translation of Schleiermacher, and formed so high an opinion of the author that he had tried, but without success, to send him to Norwich in 1837. He was anxious, however, that no bishop appointed by him should be suspected of heterodoxy, and had therefore consulted Archbishop Howley before making the offer, which was accepted at a personal interview. Notwithstanding Melbourne's precaution, the appointment caused some outcry (Letters, &c., p. xiii).

Thirlwall brought to the larger sphere of work as a bishop the thoroughness which had made him successful as a parish clergyman. Within a year he read prayers and preached in Welsh. He visited every part of his large and at that time little known diocese; inspected the condition of schools and churches; and by personal liberality augmented the income of small livings. It has been computed that he spent 40,000l. while bishop on charities of various kinds. After a quarter of a century of steady effort he could point to the restoration of 183 churches; to thirty parishes where new or restored churches were then in progress; to many new parsonages, and to a large increase of education (Charges, ii. 90–100). Yet he was not personally popular. His clergy, while they acknowledged his merits, and felt his intellectual superiority, failed to understand him; and though he did his best to receive them hospitably, and to enter into their wants and wishes, persisted in regarding him as a cold and critical alien. Gradually, therefore, his intercourse with them became limited to the archdeacons and to the few who knew how to value his friendship.

The solitude of Abergwli—the village near Carmarthen where the bishops of St. David's reside—suited Thirlwall exactly. There he could enjoy the sights and sounds of the country; the society of his birds, horses, dogs, and cats; and, above all, his books in all languages and on all subjects. The ‘Letters to a Friend’ (1881) show that in literature his taste was universal, his appetite insatiable. He rarely quitted ‘Chaos,’ as he called his library, unless compelled by business.

But he took a lively interest in the events of the day, and in all questions affecting not merely his own diocese, but the church at large. On such he elaborated his decision unbiassed by considerations of party, of his own order, or of public opinion. His seclusion from such influences gives a special value to his eleven triennial charges, which are, in fact, an epitome of the history of the church of England during his episcopate, narrated by a man of judicial mind, without passion or prejudice, and fearless in the expression of his views. At periods of great excitement he often took the unpopular side. He supported the grant to Maynooth (1845); the abolition of the civil disabilities of the Jews (1848); and the disestablishment of the Irish church (1869). On these occasions he spoke in the House of Lords, of which he


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/147

 always had the ear when he chose to address it; and in the case of the Irish church it is said that no speech had so great an effect in favour of the measure as his. He joined his brother bishops in their action against ‘Essays and Reviews;’ but he declined to inhibit Bishop Colenso from preaching in his diocese, or to urge him to resign his bishopric.

He was a regular attendant at convocation, a member of the royal commission on ritual (1868), and chairman of the Old Testament Revision Company. In May 1874 Thirlwall resigned his bishopric and retired to Bath, blind and partially paralysed. He died unmarried at 59 Pulteney Street, Bath, on 27 July 1875. He was buried on 3 Aug. in Westminster Abbey, in the same grave with George Grote. His funeral sermon, which was preached by Dean Stanley, formed the preface of the posthumous volume of Thirlwall's ‘Letters to a Friend’ (1881). In 1884 the Thirlwall prize was instituted at Cambridge in the bishop's memory; by the conditions of the foundation a medal is awarded in alternate years for the best dissertation involving original historical research, together with a sum of money to defray the expenses of publication.

Thirlwall's published works (excluding separately issued speeches and sermons) were:
 * 1) ‘Primitiæ; or Essays and Poems on various Subjects, Religious, Moral, and Entertaining. By Connop Thirlwall, eleven years of age’ (preface dated 23 Jan. 1809), London, 1809.
 * 2) ‘The Pictures; the Betrothing. Novels from the German of Lewis Tieck,’ 8vo, London, 1825.
 * 3) ‘A Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke, by Dr. F. Schleiermacher; with an Introduction by the Translator, containing an Account of the Controversy respecting the Origin of the first three Gospels since Bishop Marsh's Dissertation,’ 8vo, London, 1825.
 * 4) ‘Niebuhr's History of Rome, translated by J. C. Hare and Connop Thirlwall,’ 8vo, Cambridge, 1828–1832.
 * 5) ‘Vindication of Niebuhr's “History of Rome” from the Charges of the “Quarterly Review,”’ Hare and Thirlwall, 8vo, Cambridge, 1829.
 * 6) ‘Letter to the Rev. T. Turton, D.D., on the Admission of Dissenters to Academical Degrees (21 May),’ 8vo, Cambridge, 1834. ‘Second Letter’ (to the same, 13 June), 1834.
 * 7) ‘History of Greece,’ 8 vols. 8vo, London, 1835–44; 2nd edit. 1845–52.
 * 8) ‘Speech on Civil Disabilities of the Jews (25 May),’ 8vo, London, 1848.
 * 9) ‘Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Statements of Sir B. Hall with regard to the Collegiate Church of Brecon,’ 8vo, London, 1851; ‘Second Letter’ to same, 1851.
 * 10) ‘Letter to the Rev. Rowland Williams,’ 8vo, London, 1860.
 * 11) ‘Letter to J. Bowstead, Esq., on Education in South Wales,’ 8vo, London, 1861.
 * 12) ‘Reply to a Letter of Lord Bishop of Cape Town (29 April),’ 8vo, London, 1867.

The Rev. J. J. S. Perowne (now bishop of Worcester) edited Thirlwall's ‘Remains, Literary and Theological,’ 8vo, London, 1877–8 (vol. i. Charges delivered between 1842 and 1863, vol. ii. Charges delivered between 1863 and 1872; and vol. iii. ‘Essays, Speeches, and Sermons,’ 1878. The last volume contains Thirlwall's contributions to the Philological Museum, five speeches and eight sermons, the letter on diocesan synods (1867), the letter to the archbishop of Canterbury on the episcopal meeting of 1867, and four miscellaneous publications. In 1881 Dean Stanley edited ‘Letters to a Friend’ (Miss Johns), and in the same year Dr. Perowne and the Rev. Louis Stokes edited ‘Letters, Literary and Theological,’ with a memoir.

 THIRNING, WILLIAM (d. 1413), chief justice of the common pleas, probably came from Thirning in Huntingdonshire; his name occurs in connection with the manor of Hemingford Grey in that county (Cal. Inq. post mortem, iii. 218). Thirning first appears as an advocate in the year-books in 1370. In 1377 he was on the commission of peace for the county of Northampton, and on 20 Dec. of that year was engaged on a commission of oyer and terminer in the county of Bedford (Cal. Pat. Rolls, Richard II, i. 48, 95). In June 1380 he was a justice of assize for the counties of York, Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland (ib. i. 516). Thirning was appointed a justice of the common pleas on 11 April 1388, and became chief justice of that court on 15 Jan. 1396. In the parliament of January 1398 the judges were asked for their opinions on the answers for which their predecessors had been condemned in 1388. Thirning replied that ‘the declaration of treason not yet declared belonged to the parliament, but that had he been a lord of parliament, if he had


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/206

 Wellesley  as to the Canada bill. He was opposed to the union of the upper and lower provinces because he thought it was a step towards severing their connection with Great Britain, while Peel had no great repugnance to such a result (, ii. 337, &c., iii. 389; Speeches, 30 June 1840;, pp. 241, 252). The bedchamber question, on which the duke went along with Peel, saved the conservatives from office in 1839; and the Melbourne ministry continued to lose ground till it was brought to an end on 30 Aug. 1841 by a vote of want of confidence carried by a majority of ninety-one in the new parliament.

In 1838 he had received with warmth his old adversary, Marshal Soult, who came to England as ambassador at the coronation of Queen Victoria; at that ceremony, as well as at the queen's wedding, Wellington figured prominently as lord high constable of England.

In Peel's second ministry Wellington, at his own suggestion, had a seat in the cabinet without office, with the leadership in the lords. Since 1837 he had had several epileptic fits, usually brought on by cold or want of food, for he often went twenty-four hours without a meal (, pp. 198-212, &c.;, ii. 358; , ii. 412). As Sir James Graham said, a conservative government without him could not stand a week (, ii. 446); but it was his name, and weight rather than his active participation that was wanted. Peel's was a one-man administration, and when he sought advice it was from Graham or Gladstone. He was 'passionately preoccupied' with the state of the working classes, while Wellington was more concerned for the prosperity of agriculture.

On Hill's death Wellington was reappointed commander-in-chief by patent for life (15 Aug. 1842). He had pointed out, in December 1839, that an increase of the naval and military establishments was required; but the question now began to take more hold of his mind, and he urged it officially in December 1843 (, ii. 418, 572). No one was more anxious for peace; he anticipated the late Lord Derby in the saying that peace is the first of British interests (Speeches, 6 April 1840). But he was not disposed to trust the safety of the country to foreign friendship or alliances, and he held that the progress of steam navigation had aggravated the danger of invasion. The naval preparations of France and differences with her and with the United States made the matter very serious, and Wellington again pressed it upon Peel in December 1844. He owned that 'all the administrations since the peace of 1815 may be more or less to blame for the state in which the defences of the country are found;' and as a member of cabinets bent on 'dishing the whigs' in retrenchment he must bear his share of the blame. Little came of his remonstrances. The subject was distasteful to a ministry intent on financial reforms; Aberdeen, the foreign secretary, feared that France would take umbrage, and the entente cordiale would suffer; and the corn-law question soon absorbed attention (, iii. 197-219, 396-412).

Wellington was far from sharing the conclusions about the corn laws to which Peel came in the autumn of 1845. He was a staunch partisan of the sliding scale, and saw no reason to modify or suspend it on account of the potato disease (, iii. 38, 43). But when Peel, after resigning on 6 Dec., resumed office on the 20th, because the whigs could not form a government, Wellington unhesitatingly supported him. 'The existing corn law is not the only interest of this great nation,' he said, and Peel's downfall 'must be followed by the loss of corn laws and everything else.' The question of questions to him ever since the Reform Bill had been how to maintain a government, as opposed to a set of ministers who were the servants of a parliamentary majority made up of mere delegates from the constituencies. 'All I desire ... all I have desired for some years past—is to see a "government" in the country—to see the country "governed,"' he had said in 1839 (Speeches, 23 Aug.) He hoped at first that Peel would soften the blow to the agricultural interests, and that a schism of the conservatives might be avoided (, iii. 44, 111). He was disappointed; and on the second reading of the corn bill he could say nothing in its favour, but he advised the lords—as his last advice to them—to accept it (Speeches, 28 May 1846).

On 26 June the government, having passed the corn bill, were beaten on their Irish bill. The duke recommended dissolution, but Peel preferred to resign. This ended Wellington's career as a party politician. It would have been well, perhaps, for his reputation if he had stood aloof from party altogether, but that was impossible. His weight and capacity made the politicians turn to him for help; and he was himself a man of strong and definite convictions—what Thiers called narrow, and Stockmar one-sided—not a man of 'cross-bench mind.' At the end of 1846 Palmerston, who was again at the foreign office, brought the


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Emly, Lord


text:
Page:The Celtic Review volume 5.djvu/11

Rh

title: Page:The Celtic Review volume 5.djvu/11


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Erichsen, John Eric