text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/388

  Aitken's Life of Steele; Ward's English Poets; Cibber's Lives of the Poets, v. 17; Johnson's Lives of the Poets; Spence's Anecdotes; Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. p. 238; Nichols's Lit. Anecd.; Drake's Essays on the Tatler, Spectator, and Guardian.]

TIDCOMB or TIDCOMBE, JOHN (1642–1713), lieutenant-general, born in 1642, was a son of Peter Tidcombe of Calne, Wiltshire. He matriculated as a servitor at Oriel College, Oxford, on 22 March 1660–1. On 20 June 1685 he was gazetted captain in the Earl of Huntingdon's regiment of foot (now the Somerset light infantry). In the same year he was present at the coronation of James II in the capacity of a gentleman pensioner. He was appointed colonel of the 14th foot on 14 Nov. 1692. In March 1695 he accompanied King William on his visit to Oxford, and was created D.C.L. He received command of a regiment on the Irish establishment in 1700. In August 1701 a whole company of it deserted from Limerick and fled to the mountains. He afterwards served in Portugal. In March 1705 he and Lieutenant-general Stewart conveyed letters from Ormonde to Marlborough when the latter was in London. In the following month Tidcombe was appointed major-general, and in 1708 was further promoted lieutenant-general. He would appear to have been a protéegé of Ormonde. Swift says that while a subaltern officer he was ‘every day complaining of the pride, oppression, and hard treatment of colonels toward (sic) their officers,’ but that immediately after he had received his regiment he ‘confessed that the spirit of colonelship was coming fast upon him,’ and that it daily increased to the hour of his death.

Tidcombe was a wit as well as a soldier, and was a member of the Kit-Cat Club. When Mrs. Manley was dismissed by the Duchess of Cleveland, he ‘offered her an asylum at his country house,’ but she declined his overtures (, Contin. of Granger, ii. 199). Tidcombe is the Sir Charles Lovemore who in Mrs. Manley's memoirs (‘The History of Rivella’) is supposed to relate her story to his friend the Chevalier d'Aumont in the gardens of Somerset House. In the introduction he is characterised as ‘a person of admirable good sense and knowledge.’

Tidcomb died at Bath in June 1713. His portrait was painted by Kneller and engraved in 1735 by J. Faber.

[Memoirs of the Kit-Cat Club (1821), with portrait, pp. 176–7; Foster's Alumni Oxon.; Luttrell's Brief Relation, v. 51, 83, 325, 538; Dalton's Army Lists, ii. 34 n., 143, iii. 6, 254; Marlborough's Letters, ed. Murray, i. 611, v. 645; Swift's Works, ed. Scott, 2nd edit. viii. 320; History of Rivella, 3rd edit. 1717; Bromley's Cat. Engr. Portraits; Political State of Great Britain, v. 458; there are letters by Tidcombe to Ormonde and references to him among the Ormonde Papers (Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep.).]  TIDD, WILLIAM (1760–1847), legal writer, born in 1760, was the second son of Julius Tidd, a merchant of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn. He was admitted to the society of the Inner Temple on 6 June 1782, and was called to the bar on 26 Nov. 1813, after having practised as a special pleader for upwards of thirty years. Among his pupils he numbered three who became lord chancellors—Lyndhurst, Cottenham, and Campbell—and Lord-chief-justice Denman. Tidd is chiefly known by his ‘Practice of the Court of King's Bench’ (London, 8vo), the first part of which appeared in 1790 and the second in 1794. For a long period it was almost the sole authority for common-law practice. It went through nine editions, the latest appearing in 1828. Several supplements were also issued, which in 1837 were consolidated into one volume. The work was also extensively used in America, where an edition, with notes by Asa I. Fish, appeared as late as 1856. Tidd was favoured by the approbation of Uriah Heep, ‘I am improving my legal knowledge, Master Copperfield,’ said Uriah. ‘I am going through Tidd's “Practice.” Oh, what a writer Mr. Tidd is, Master Copperfield!’ (David Copperfield, ch. xii.).

Tidd died on 14 Feb. 1847 in Walcot Place, Lambeth, and was buried at Tillington in Sussex. By his wife Elizabeth he left ten children. She survived him a few months, dying on 21 Oct. 1847. Tidd bequeathed the copyright of the ‘Practice’ to Edward Hobson Vitruvius Lawes, serjeant-at-law. Besides the ‘Practice,’ Tidd was the author of: 1. ‘Law of Costs in Civil Actions,’ London, 1792, 8vo; Dublin, 1793, 24mo. 2. ‘Practical Forms and Entries of Proceedings in the Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer of Pleas,’ London, 1799, 8vo; 8th ed. 1840, 8vo. 3. ‘Forms of Proceedings in Replevin and Ejectment,’ London, 1804, 8vo. 4. ‘The Act for Uniformity of Process in Personal Actions,’ London, 1833, 12mo. The last three were intended to supplement the ‘Practice.’

[Gent. Mag. 1847, i. 553, ii. 665; Joseph Story's Life and Letters, ii. 434; Allibone's Dict. of Engl. Lit.]


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/389

 TIDEY, ALFRED (1808–1892), miniature-painter, second son of John Tidey, schoolmaster, was born at Worthing House, Sussex, on 20 April 1808. Henry Tidey [q. v.] was his younger brother. His first instruction in art was received in the school conducted by his father, who was himself a fairly good artist. In early life he devoted himself to miniature-painting, and while yet very young came to London, where he attracted the notice of Henry Neville, second earl of Abergavenny. He began to exhibit at the Royal Academy in 1831, and in 1836 he sent a miniature of Sir John Conroy, bart., comptroller of the household to the Duchess of Kent. He thus became known to the Duchess's daughter, Queen Victoria, who in 1841 commanded him to paint a miniature of the Hon. Julia Henrietta Anson, one of her maids of honour, afterwards Lady Brooke, which was engraved by James Thomson. He painted also a miniature of the Empress Frederick (of Germany) when a child, and at a later period (1873) watercolour portraits of her and of the Princess Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein. He continued to exhibit miniatures at the Royal Academy regularly until 1857, but seldom after that date. He occasionally exhibited watercolour drawings, ending in 1887 with one entitled ‘As Good as Gold.’ Three of his latest works appeared in 1891 in the exhibition of the Dudley Gallery Art Society, of which he was a member.

Tidey died at Glen Elg, Springfield Park, Acton, Middlesex, on 2 April 1892.

[Times, 7 April 1892; Ottley's Dictionary of Recent and Living Painters and Engravers, 1866; Royal Academy Exhibition Catalogues, 1831–87.]  TIDEY, HENRY (1814–1872), watercolour-painter, younger brother of Alfred Tidey [q. v.], was born at Worthing House, Sussex, on 7 Jan. 1814. Like his brother, he was taught drawing in his father's school, and, while yet a boy, he painted several pictures for the Princess Augusta, who was then staying at Worthing. He afterwards practised there as a painter of portraits, both in oil and in watercolours. Later on he came to London, and met with considerable success as a portrait-painter, especially of children. In 1839 he sent a portrait in watercolours to the exhibition of the Royal Academy, where he continued to exhibit chiefly portraits until 1861. Occasionally he painted genre pictures in oil, and among them were ‘The Union’ and ‘The Repeal of the Union,’ which were engraved by Samuel Bellin; ‘Fair-Time in the Park, Greenwich,’ ‘Sunshine and Shade,’ and ‘Sea Weeds,’ a picture representing a band of Irish girls dancing on the sea-shore, which appeared at the Royal Academy in 1856. In 1855 he exhibited there for the first time a watercolour drawing, the subject of which was the gallant action of Lieutenant-colonel Pakenham at the battle of the Alma. The success of this work led him in subsequent years to confine himself almost entirely to historical and poetical subjects, the latter somewhat after the manner of Watteau.

Tidey was elected an associate of the New Society (afterwards the Institute) of Painters in Watercolours in 1858, and in that year sent to its exhibition three drawings, ‘Idleness,’ ‘The Wanderer,’ and ‘The Oyster Season—Natives of Hampshire.’ In 1859 he became a full member, and exhibited ‘The Feast of Roses,’ from Moore's ‘Lalla Rookh,’ which was purchased by the queen, and three other drawings. Of works which followed the best were ‘Queen Mab’ in 1860; ‘Dar-Thula,’ a subject from Ossian, bought by the Duke of Manchester, and ‘Walter and Jane,’ engraved by William Holl, in 1861; ‘The Last of the Abencerages’ in 1862; ‘Christ blessing little Children’ in 1863; ‘The Night of the Betrayal,’ a triptych of much devotional feeling, in 1864; ‘Nanny, wilt thou gang wi' me?’ engraved by William Holl, in 1865; ‘Sensitive Plants,’ a series of drawings of children, in 1866 and 1867; ‘The Seasons,’ four drawings, in 1867; ‘Jeanie Morrison’ and ‘The Woman of Samaria,’ the latter engraved for the ‘Art Journal’ by Thomas Sherratt, in 1868; ‘Sardanapalus’ in 1870; ‘Seaweeds’ and ‘Flowers of the Forest’ in 1871; and ‘Richard and Kate,’ two different compositions bearing the same title, ‘Castles in the Air,’ and ‘Sanctuary’ in 1872.

Tidey died at 30 Percy Street, Bedford London, on 21 July 1872. His remaining drawings and sketches were sold by Messrs. Christie, Manson, & Woods on 28 March 1873.

[Art Journal, 1869 pp. 109–11, 1872 p. 226; Redgrave's Dictionary of Artists of the English School, 1878; Academy, 1 Aug. 1872; Royal Academy Exhibition Catalogues, 1839–69; Exhibition Catalogues of the New Society of Painters in Watercolours, 1858–72.]  TIDFERTH or TIDFRITH (d. 823?), bishop of Dunwich, succeeded Alfhun (d. 798?) as ninth bishop of that see. His profession of obedience to Ethelheard, archbishop of Canterbury, made either on his consecration or on his reconciliation after the abolition of the archbishopric of Lichfield, is extant in Cotton MS. Cleopatra

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


text:
Page:No Treason, v2.djvu/22

14 IX.

Obviously there can be no law of treason more stringent than has now been stated, consistently with political liberty. In the very nature of things there can never be any liberty for the weaker party, on any other principle; and political liberty always means liberty for the weaker party. It is only the weaker party that is ever oppressed. The strong are always free by virtue of their superior strength. So long as government is a mere contest as to which of two parties shall rule the other, the weaker must always succumb. And whether the contest be carried on with ballots or bullets, the principle is the same; for under the theory of government now prevailing, the ballot either signifies a bullet, or it signifies nothing. And no one can consistently use a ballot, unless he intends to use a bullet, if the latter should be needed to insure submission to the former.

X.

The practical difficulty with our government has been, that most of those who have administered it, have taken it for granted that the Constitution, as it is written was a thing of no importance; that it neither said what it meant, nor meant what it said; that it was gotten up by swindlers, (as many of its authors doubtless were,) who said a great many good things, which they did not mean, and meant a great many bad things, which they dared not say; that these men, under the false pretence of a government resting on the consent of the whole people, designed to entrap them into a government of a part, who should be powerful and fraudulent enough to cheat the weaker portion out of all the good things that were said, but not meant, and subject them to all the bad things that were meant, but not said. And most of those who have administered the government, have assumed that all these swindling intentions were to be carried into effect, in the place of the written Constitution. Of all these swindles, the

title: Page:No Treason, v2.djvu/22


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/120

 cxiv hidden treasure; oska-byrr, a fair wind, a wind as fair as man's heart could wish it; osk-barn and oska-barn, a child after one's own heart, an adopted child, as when the younger Edda tells us that all those who die in battle are Odin's choice-bairns, his adopted children, those on whom he has set his heart,—an expression which, in their turn, was taken by the Icelandic Christian writers to express the relation existing between God and the baptized; and, though last, not least, oska-mær, wish-maidens, another name for the Valkyries—Odin's corse-choosers,—who picked out the dead for him on the field of battle, and waited on the heroes in Valhalla. Again, the Edda is filled with "choice things," possessing some mysterious power of their own, some "virtue," as our older English would express it, which belong to this or that god, and are occasionally lent or lost. Thus, Odin himself had a spear which gave victory to those on whose side it was hurled; Thor, a hammer which destroyed the Giants, hallowed vows, and returned of itself to his hand. He had a, strength-belt, too, which, when he girded it on, his god-strength waxed one-half; Freyr had a sword which wielded itself; Freyja a necklace which, like the cestus of Venus, inspired all hearts with love; Freyr, again, had a ship called Skithblathnir.

"She is so great, that all the Æsir, with their weapons and war gear, may find room on board her; and as soon as the sail is set, she has a fair wind whither she shall go; and when there is no need of faring on the sea in her, she is made of so many things, and with so much craft, that Freyr may fold her together like a cloth, and keep her in his bag."


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/119

 Rh which, however expressive it may still be, has lost much of the fulness of its meaning in its descent to these later times. This word was "Wish," which originally meant the perfect ideal, the actual fruition of all joy and desire, and not, as now, the empty longing for the object of our desires. From this original abstract meaning, it was but a step to pass to the concrete, to personify the idea, to make it an immortal essence, an attribute of the divinity, another name for the greatest of all Gods himself. And so we find a host of passages in early writers, in every one of which "God" or "Odin" might be substituted for "Wish" with perfect propriety. Here we read how "The Wish" has hands, feet, power, sight, toil, and art. How he works and labours, shapes and masters, inclines his ear, thinks, swears, curses, and rejoices, adopts children, and takes men into his house; behaves, in short, as a being of boundless power and infinite free-will. Still more, he rejoices in his own works as in a child, and thus appears in a thoroughly patriarchal point of view, as the Lord of creation, glorying in his handiwork, as the father of a family in early times was glad at heart when he reckoned his children as arrows in his quiver, and beheld his house full of a long line of retainers and dependants. For this attribute of the Great Father, for Odin as the God of Wish, the Edda uses the word "Oski," which literally expresses the masculine personification of "Wish," and it passed on and added the word osk, wish, as a prefix to a number of others, to signify that they stood in a peculiar relation to the Great Giver of all good. Thus, we have oska-steinn, wishing-stone, i.e. a stone which plays the part of a divining-rod, and reveals secrets and


text:
User talk:206.131.150.58

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * Help pages
 * Style Guide
 * Inclusion policy

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you continue to edit without a username, your IP address is used to publicly identify you.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question. Again, welcome! -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC) A contribution from this account or ip address, which appeared to be a test edit, was removed or reverted. Please use the sandbox for this purpose. The community portal has information on contributing to this library.

title: User talk:206.131.150.58


text:
Page:No Treason, v2.djvu/23

15 treason swindle is the most flagitious. It is the most flagitious, because it is equally flagitious, in principle, with any; and it includes all the others. It is the instrumentality by which all the others are made effective. A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases.

The result—and a natural one—has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent.

XI.

No attempt or pretence, that was ever carried into practical operation amongst civilized men—unless possibly the pretence of a "Divine Right," on the part of some, to govern and enslave others—embodied so much of shameless absurdity, falsehood, impudence, robbery, usurpation, tyranny, and villany of every kind, as the attempt or pretence of establishing a government by consent, and getting the actual consent of only so many as may be necessary to keep the rest in subjection by force. Such a government is a mere conspiracy of the strong against the weak. It no more rests on consent than does the worst government on earth.

What substitute for their consent is offered to the weaker party, whose rights are thus annihilated, struck out of existence,

title: Page:No Treason, v2.djvu/23


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/390

 E. 1. From 798 to 816 he attests charters with great regularity (, Codex Diplomaticus, passim). In 798 he was present at a synod at Clovesho, and in 801 at another held at Chelsea. He attended the famous council at Clovesho in 803, and about the same time received a letter of advice from Alcuin, who had heard of Tidferth's exemplary life from an East-Anglian abbot named Lull (Mon. Alcuin. ed. Dümmler, p. 739). Tidferth was also present at the council of Chelsea in August 816, which legislated on the method of consecrating churches, electing abbots and abbesses, and forbade the admission of Scots to ministerial functions (Cotton. MS. Vespasian A. xiv. f. 147;, Concilia, i. 169–71). After 816 there is no trace of a bishop of Dunwich until 824, by which time Tidferth was dead. He must be distinguished from a contemporary Tidfrith or Tilferd, the last bishop of Hexham who held that see at the beginning of the ninth century (, Surtees Soc. p. 45).

[Petrie's Mon. Hist. Brit. p. 618; Kemble's Codex Diplomaticus; Wilkins's Concilia; Le Neve's Fasti, ed. Hardy, ii. 457; Haddan and Stubbs's Councils, passim; Bishop Stubbs in Dict. Christian Biogr.]  TIDY, CHARLES MEYMOTT (1843–1892), sanitary chemist, was born on 2 Feb. 1843, and was the son of William Callender Tidy, M.D., of South Hackney and his wife, Charlotte Meymott. After attending two small private schools he passed through the Hackney church of England school, and then entered as a student at the London Hospital under Henry Letheby [q. v.], becoming M.R.C.S. and L.S.A. in 1864. In 1865 he entered the university of Aberdeen, and in 1866 graduated C.M. and M.B. with the highest honours. On his return to London he took up his father's medical practice at Hackney, and continued in practice for about ten years. During this period he was also associated at the London Hospital with Dr. Letheby as joint lecturer in chemistry, and under his influence gradually became interested in questions of sanitary reform and public health. On the death of Letheby in 1876 Tidy succeeded to his appointments as professor of chemistry, medical jurisprudence, and public health, and was afterwards called to the bar and appointed reader in medical jurisprudence to the inns of court. He also became public analyst and deputy medical officer of health for the city of London, medical officer of health for Islington, and official analyst to the home office.

In addition to discharging his official duties, Tidy chiefly turned his attention to sanitary questions, and especially to those dealing with water supply and the treatment of sewage, and gained a high reputation and a large practice as an expert in matters of this kind. In 1879 he published a paper on ‘The Processes for determining the Organic Purity of Potable Waters’ (Journal of the Chemical Society, 1879, p. 46), in which he proposed a modification of Forchammer's original process for determining the amount of organic matter in waters by oxidation with potassium permanganate. This method is now generally employed by water analysts, and is usually known as ‘Tidy's process.’ In 1880 he published an elaborate paper, entitled ‘River Water’ (Journ. Chem. Soc. 1880, p. 268), and in 1881 he was appointed by the London water companies, along with Professor Odling and (Sir) William Crookes, to examine the quality of the water supplied to the metropolis. He died at his residence in London on 15 March 1892.

In 1875 he married Violet Fordham Dobell, by whom he had a son and a daughter, both of whom survived him.

Tidy, whose views on sanitary questions were invariably moderate and sound, was the author of a number of works dealing with legal medicine and chemical science, and also published a number of papers and pamphlets which are chiefly concerned with technical subjects. The most important of his publications, in addition to those to which reference has already been made, are: 1. ‘A Handy Book of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology’ (with W. B. Woodman), 1877. 2. ‘A Handbook of Modern Chemistry,’ 1878. 3. ‘Legal Medicine,’ 2 vols. 1882–3. 4. ‘The Story of a Tinder Box,’ 1889. 5. ‘Medical Law for Medical Men’ (with P. Clarke, LL.B.), 1890. Tidy also published the following lectures and papers: 6. ‘Coal and its Products,’ two lectures, 1867. 7. ‘An Analysis of Human Milk’ (‘London Hospital Reports’), 1867. 8. ‘On Poisoning by Colocynth’ (‘Lancet’), 1868. 9. ‘On Poisoning by Opium’ (‘Medical Times and Gazette’), 1868. 10. ‘Development: an Introductory Lecture at the London Hospital,’ 1869. 11. ‘Reports on Chemistry’ in Dobell's ‘Reports on the Progress of Medicine,’ 1869–70. 12. ‘On Ammonia in the Urine in Health and Disease’ with W. B. Woodman, (‘Roy. Soc. Proc.’ 1872, xx. 362). 13. ‘Religion and Health,’ 1874. 14. ‘The Cantor Lectures, 1873, on the Practical Applications of Optics to the Arts and Manufactures and to Medicine,’ 1873. 15. ‘The London Water Supply,’ 1878. 16. ‘The Treatment of Sewage’ (‘Journal of the Society of Arts’),


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/391

 1886. 17. ‘The Maybrick Trial: a Toxicological Study’ (with R. Macnamara), 1890.

[Journ. Chem. Soc. 1893, p. 766; Lancet, 1892, p. 650; Medical Directory, 1892; private communication from W. M. Tidy, esq.]  TIERNAN or TIGHEARNAN, O'ROURKE (d. 1172), king of Breifne. [See .]

TIERNEY, GEORGE (1761–1830), statesman, was son of Thomas Tierney, a native of Limerick, who, having been a merchant in London, removed to Gibraltar in order to act as prize agent there. His family belonged to the wealthy mercantile class; his uncle James was a member of the firm of Tierney, Lilly, & Robarts, Spanish merchants of Lawrence Pountney Lane; and another uncle, George, was long a merchant and banker at Naples.

George Tierney was born at Gibraltar on 20 March 1761. About 1763 his father removed to Paris, where he lived in affluence for nearly thirty years. For some reason he appears to have been unable or unwilling to return home, but his wife resided near London, and his children were educated in England.

George was sent to Eton and afterwards to Peterhouse, Cambridge, whence he graduated LL.B. in 1784. He was called to the bar, but did not practise. Late in 1788 he contested Colchester in the popular interest against George Jackson (afterwards judge-advocate of the fleet), and both candidates polled the same number of votes. On 1 April 1789 the committee which was appointed to try the election reported that Tierney was duly elected. At the general election next year the same candidates stood and Jackson was elected. Tierney petitioned, and his petition was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious. Colchester was a notoriously corrupt place, and the expenses of two elections and two petitions fell heavily upon him. An attempt to enforce a promise of the Duke of Portland to bear part of the cost by filing a bill in chancery against him was unsuccessful, and Tierney was left to publish his annoyance in a pamphlet letter to Dundas in 1791. He turned his attention also to Indian affairs, on which he had already written one pamphlet in 1787, and now wrote two others, both in 1791. At the general election of 1796 he was invited to contest Southwark, a subscription being raised to return him free of expense; but he was decisively defeated by his opponent, George Woodford Thellusson, his niece's husband, and second son of Peter Thellusson [q. v.] On petition, however, Thellusson's election was annulled for breaches of the Treating Act. Another election was held with the same result, and Tierney again petitioned, with the result that his opponent was declared ineligible and the seat awarded to him.

Tierney at once plunged into an active opposition to Pitt. During 1797 he introduced several financial motions, and served as chairman of a committee upon a bill to prevent the regrating of cattle. In 1798, when Fox and his followers resolved to discontinue their attendance in the House of Commons, Tierney insisted upon appearing in his place. He thus secured an opportunity of making himself personally prominent, and became for a considerable time the most prominent and often the only opponent of Pitt in debate. By this conduct he deeply offended the whigs of the party of Fox, and it was long before he regained any share of their confidence. Matters were not mended by his protestations of personal loyalty to Fox. His action in fact deprived their demonstration of much of its effect, and he was never wholly forgiven (cf. Life of Wilberforce, iii. 36;, Memoirs of the Whig Party, i. 93).

In May 1798 Tierney came into personal conflict with Pitt. During a debate on the manning of the navy on the 25th, Pitt accused Tierney of deliberately impeding public business, and refused to withdraw his aspersion when it was ruled unparliamentary. He and Tierney met in consequence on the following Sunday afternoon, the 27th, on Putney Heath, and, while a considerable crowd, among whom was the speaker Addington, looked on, they exchanged two shots on each side without hitting, and the seconds then declared honour to have been satisfied (, Life of Sidmouth, i. 205;, Life of Pitt, iii. 130).

From 1798 onward Tierney kept up a constant and vigorous criticism of Pitt's policy, and ‘maintained his own line of opposition, especially in questions of finance’ (, Diaries, i. 193). He had begun on 24 Nov. 1797 his series of onslaughts on the budget, when his tone is said by Wilberforce to have been ‘truly Jacobinical’ (Life, ii. 244), and he annually introduced resolutions censuring in detail the government's financial policy for the year. In 1798 he moved a resolution in favour of a separate peace with France, and his generally cosmopolitan sentiments made Canning strike at him as the ‘Friend of Humanity’ in the ‘Needy Knife-grinder.’ His talent, however, was recognised and admitted by his opponents,


text:
Page:No Treason, v2.djvu/24

16 by the stronger? Only this: Their consent is presumed! That is, these usurpers condescendingly and graciously presume that those whom they enslave, consent to surrender their all of life, liberty, and property into the hands of those who thus usurp dominion over them! And it is pretended that this presumption of their consent—when no actual consent has been given—is sufficient to save the rights of the victims, and to justify the usurpers! As well might the highwayman pretend to justify himself by presuming that the traveller consents to part with his money. As well might the assassin justify himself by simply presuming that his victim consents to part with his life. As well might the holder of chattel slaves attempt to justify himself by presuming that they consent to his authority, and to the whips and the robbery which he practises upon them. The presumption is simply a presumption that the weaker party consent to be slaves.

Such is the presumption on which alone our government relies to justify the power it maintains over its unwilling subjects. And it was to establish that presumption as the inexorable and perpetual law of this country, that so much money and blood have been expended.

title: Page:No Treason, v2.djvu/24


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/392

 and it was thought not impossible to attach him to the government. It was already rumoured, in 1802, that he was willing to take office under Addington, and in consequence he was almost defeated at the general election, when his Southwark seat was assailed by Sir Thomas Turton, a follower of Pitt. Pitt is said to have recommended Addington to secure Tierney as the most useful supporter he could have, and on 1 June Tierney became treasurer of the navy in Addington's ministry, and was sworn of the privy council. His re-election for Southwark was not opposed. He quitted office with Addington in May 1804. In August of the same year Pitt made him the offer of the Irish chief-secretaryship, which he refused. Greville was told twenty years later that Tierney, though willing to serve, wished to do so without a seat in the House of Commons, as he was not yet prepared to commit himself to an open parliamentary support of a leader whom he had so often attacked. Pitt, however, insisted on a full support, and the matter fell through (Greville Memoirs, 1st ser. i. 14). On 30 Sept. 1806 he returned to office as president of the board of control; but he was now ousted by Turton, his former opponent, from the representation of Southwark, and contented himself with sitting for Athlone. At the next general election he was returned for Bandon Bridge, in 1812 for Appleby, and from 1818 till he died he was M.P. for Knaresborough.

Tierney returned to opposition when Lord Grenville quitted office, and year by year he became more and more prominent in his party's ranks. His undaunted tenacity, his knowledge of business, his readiness in debate, his clearness of expression gave him great claims to the leadership of his party in the House of Commons. But the old soreness which arose in 1798 had not wholly passed away, and he was not in Grenville's confidence. He laboured, too, as did Whitbread, under the heavy social disadvantage among his party of being only sprung from the mercantile class. By unsparing use of his wealth he had forced his way into parliament, but the aristocratic whigs shrank from serving under him, and he advanced to the front rank only by the death or retirement of his contemporaries. When George Ponsonby [q. v.] died in 1817 he became the acknowledged leader of the opposition; but his followers were insubordinate, and early in 1821 a difference of opinion on the question of the insertion of the queen's name in the liturgy led to a feud so open that he refused to act as leader any longer. In 1827 he favoured the coalition with Canning, and in May he joined the administration as master of the mint. On Canning's death Goderich is said to have offered him the chancellorship of the exchequer, but this is doubtful (Life of Herries, i. 174); and the personal efforts he made to thwart Herries's chances of obtaining the post seem inconsistent with his having had it offered to himself already. It was on his suggestion and through his negotiation that Althorp was selected for the chairmanship of the finance committee, and was thus set on his way to be leader of the House of Commons in 1830. Tierney quitted office with Goderich in January 1828, and thereupon his political career closed. He died suddenly on 25 Jan. 1830 at his house in Savile Row, London. He married Miss Miller of Stapleton in Gloucestershire on 10 July 1789, and by her had a large family.

Had Tierney been the contemporary of men less brilliant than Pitt, Burke, Fox, and Sheridan, his reputation as a debater would have stood very high. His logic was strong, his wit ready, and his sagacity great. His sarcasms and sneers, uttered in tones and phrases equally cutting, were much dreaded by his opponents, and for years he fought the uphill battle of hopeless opposition, and fought it admirably, when his more famous contemporaries retired from it. Yet because of the social obscurity of his origin the whigs would neither trust nor reward him; he only held office for about three years in his whole life and was a member of a whig ministry for but a few months, and then only in subordinate position.

In the National Portrait Gallery there is a bust of him, dated 1822, by William Behnes.

[Walpole's Hist. of England, i. 310; Stanhope's Life of Pitt; Pellew's Life of Sidmouth; Lord Colchester's Diaries; Gent. Mag. 1830, pt. i. pp. 268, 295, 386; Correspondence of Earl Grey and Princess Lieven, i. 423.]  TIERNEY, MARK ALOYSIUS (1795–1862), Roman catholic historian, born at Brighton in September 1795, was sent at an early age to the school directed by the Franciscan fathers at Baddesley Green, Warwickshire, from which he was transferred in 1810 to the college of St. Edmund at Old Hall, near Ware. After passing through the usual course of classical studies with distinguished success, he was ordained priest in 1818, and for some time afterwards he remained in the college as a professor (, Hist. of St. Edmund's College, p. 206). Then he was appointed one of the assistant priests at Warwick Street, London, whence he was removed to Lincoln's Inn Fields.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/393

 In consequence of ill-health, which distressed him through life, he was transferred to the country mission of Slindon, Sussex (the seat of the Newburgh family), where he remained for two or three years. In 1824 he became the chaplain of Bernard Edward Howard, twelfth duke of Norfolk [q. v.], and from that time forward he resided at Arundel. He now had ample leisure to devote to historical and antiquarian studies. On 7 Feb. 1833 he was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London, and on 25 July 1841 a fellow of the Royal Society. He was also a corresponding member of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. On the formation of the Sussex Archæological Society in 1846 he became its local secretary, and in 1850 he also joined the committee. He supervised many papers for the society, and contributed in 1849 to vol. iii. of its ‘Proceedings’ ‘Notices of Recent Excavations in the Collegiate Church of Arundel,’ and in 1860 to vol. xii. ‘An Account of the Discovery of the Remains of John, seventeenth earl of Arundel.’

For many years he was a member of the ancient chapter of England, and when the diocese of Southwark was erected by Pope Pius IX in 1852, he became the first canon penitentiary of the cathedral chapter. Throughout life he was an opponent of Cardinal Wiseman and of undue interference on the part of the pope. He died at Arundel on 19 Feb. 1862, and was buried in the Fitzalan chapel. He left all his manuscripts to Thomas Grant [q. v.], bishop of Southwark, but his printed books were sold by Sotheby & Co., 1–4 Dec. 1862.

Tierney's chief work was a new edition of the Rev. Charles Dodd's ‘Church History of England … chiefly with regard to Catholics … with notes, additions, and a continuation,’ 5 vols. London, 1839–43, 8vo. Tierney's edition is unfortunately incomplete, ending with the year 1625, and no portion of the projected continuation appeared. Most of the documents printed in the valuable notes to this edition were collected by John Kirk, D.D. [q. v.], of Lichfield. Tierney contributed a ‘Life of Dr. John Lingard’ to the ‘Metropolitan and Provincial Catholic Almanac,’ 1854, which was afterwards prefixed to vol. x. of the sixth edition of Lingard's ‘History of England,’ London, 1855, 8vo, and aided largely in Dallaway's ‘History of the Western Division of Sussex.’

Tierney also published: 1. ‘Letter to the King on Catholic Emancipation,’ 1825. 2. ‘Correspondence between the Hon. and Rev. E. J. Turnour on Charges against the Catholic Religion,’ Chichester, 1830. 3. ‘The History and Antiquities of the Castle and Town of Arundel,’ with plates, London, 1834, 4to. 4. ‘Correspondence between the Messrs. Bodenham and the Rev. M. A. Tierney,’ relating to a conversation about the Jesuits, privately printed (London), 1840, 8vo. 5. ‘A Letter to G. Chandler, D.C.L., Dean of Chichester … containing some remarks on his sermon preached in the Cathedral Church of Chichester … on the occasion of publicly receiving into the Church a convert from the Church of Rome,’ London, 1844, 8vo. 6. ‘Reply to Cardinal Wiseman's Letter to his Chapter,’ 42 pp. (1858), 8vo; this was carefully suppressed.

[Bowden's Life of Faber, p. 494; Catholic Mag. 1839, iii. 822; Downside Review, vi. 141; Dublin Review, 1839, vi. 401; Gent. Mag. 1862, pt. i. p. 508; Lower's Worthies of Sussex, p. 341; Notes and Queries, 3rd ser. vi. 29, 57; Times, 24 Feb. 1862; Ward's Hist. of St. Edmund's College, p. 343; Ward's Life of Cardinal Wiseman, 1897, i. 515, ii. 61, 251.]  TIERNEY, MATTHEW JOHN (1776–1845), physician, eldest son of John Tierney and his wife Mary, daughter of James Gleeson of Rathkinnon, co. Limerick, was born at Ballyscandland, co. Limerick, on 24 Nov. 1776. After medical study at the then united hospitals of Guy and St. Thomas in Southwark, he was appointed surgeon to the South Gloucester regiment of militia by Earl Berkeley, with whom he had become acquainted. Edward Jenner, whose house was close to the walls of Berkeley Castle, had convinced its lord of the utility of vaccination, and thus Tierney learnt the value of the procedure, and throughout life did all he could to spread the knowledge and practice of this protection against smallpox. In 1799 he entered as a student of medicine at the university of Edinburgh, and having heard the famous Professor James Gregory (1753–1821) [q. v.] deliver in lecture ‘a severe and unqualified opinion against cow-pock,’ he called upon him and so thoroughly convinced him of the error of this view that the professor asked Tierney to vaccinate his son, and this was done with vaccine virus obtained from Jenner. In 1801 Tierney migrated to Glasgow, and there graduated M.D. on 22 April 1802, reading a dissertation ‘De Variola Vaccina.’ He began practice as a physician at Brighton in 1802, and by the influence of Earl Berkeley was appointed physician to the household of the Prince of Wales at Brighton. On 30 Sept. 1806 he was admitted a licentiate of the College of Physicians of London, and in 1809 he was appointed physician extraordinary to the Prince of Wales. On 28 Jan. 1816 he became physician in ordinary to the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/394

 prince regent, and when the prince became George IV he was made physician in ordinary to the king. He held the same post under William IV. On 3 Oct. 1818 he was created a baronet, and on 7 May 1831 a knight commander of the Guelphic order. He published at Brighton in 1845 ‘Observations on Variola Vaccina or Cow-pock.’ He died at Brighton on 28 Oct. 1845. On 8 Oct. 1808 he married Harriet Mary, daughter of Henry Jones of Bloomsbury Square, but having no children, on 5 June 1834 he was granted a second patent of baronetcy with remainder to his younger brother, Edward Tierney of Dublin.

[Munk's Coll. of Phys. iii. 44; Gent. Mag. 1846, i. 206; Works.]

TIFFIN, WILLIAM (1695?–1759), stenographer, the son of Roger Tiffin of Crimplesham, Norfolk, was born at Crimplesham about 1695. He was admitted a sizar of Caius College, Cambridge, on 11 Feb. 1712–13, and graduated B.A. in 1716 (Graduati Cantabr. 1823, p. 470). On 21 Sept. 1718 he was ordained deacon as curate of Wereham and Wretton, Norfolk. He was recommended to John Jackson, master of Wigston's hospital, Leicester, by Mr. Pyle of Lynn Regis, and he was appointed confrater or chaplain of the hospital at the instance of Jackson, whom he assisted in his various collations of the New Testament. The appointment was particularly acceptable to Tiffin because it did not require subscription to the Thirty-nine articles, to which he had some objection. He died in December 1759, and was buried in St. Martin's Church, Leicester. He was the author of ‘A New Help and Improvement of the Art of Swift-Writing,’ London [November 1751], 8vo. The work shows that Tiffin had studied the science of phonetics as well as the art of shorthand. Of his new invention he says ‘a peculiar Intention is pursu'd, that is not so much as attempted in any Book or Scheme of Short Hand that I know or ever heard of. That is to suit the Alphabet to the Utterances of the Language.’ He announces that ‘care is taken to give every character one power of its own, in which no other character is allowed to interfere.’ He pointed out the defects and inconsistencies of our ordinary orthography, and sought by means of a simpler alphabet and a new vowel scale to place the spelling of the language on a strictly phonetic basis. His theory has since been developed. The great fault in his phonographic alphabet was that the signs varied in meaning as they were placed above or below a line, real or imaginary; hence it was seldom that they could be joined together; and of course the constant lifts of the pen entirely defeated the aim of swift writing. Nevertheless his invention marks a distinct advance in the stenographic art. The alphabet as presented in the book is a veritable ‘Egyptian puzzle,’ but a clear account of the system is given in the ‘Phonetic Journal,’ 8 Jan. 1887, p. 15.

TIGHE, MARY (1772–1810), poet, daughter of the Rev. William Blachford and his wife Theodosia, daughter of William Tighe of Rosanna, co. Wicklow, was born in Ireland on 9 Oct. 1772. Her father, a clergyman of property, was librarian of Marsh's library in Dublin, and was also in charge of St. Patrick's Library in that city. Her mother was a granddaughter of John Bligh, first earl of Darnley, and a lineal descendant of Edward Hyde, first earl of Clarendon. She was one of the women who took a prominent part in the methodist movement in Ireland (cf., Memorable Women of Irish Methodism, pp. 140–150).

In 1793 Miss Blachford married her cousin, Henry Tighe of Woodstock, co. Wicklow, who represented the borough of Inistioge, Kilkenny, in the Irish parliament from 1790 until the treaty of union. The marriage was not happy. About 1803 or 1804 Mrs. Tighe developed consumption. Moore, writing to his mother, 22 Aug. 1805, says: ‘Poor Mrs. T[ighe] is ordered to the Madeiras, which makes me despair of her, for she will not go, and another winter will inevitably be her death’ (, Memoirs of Moore, i. 185). She died on 24 March 1810 at the residence of her brother-in-law, Woodstock, co. Kilkenny, and was buried in the churchyard of Inistioge, where a monument, said to be by Flaxman, marks her grave (cf., Memorials of Mrs. Hemans, ii. 209–19).

Mrs. Tighe's poem ‘Psyche, or the Legend of Love,’ founded on the story of Cupid and Psyche as related in the ‘Golden Ass of Apuleius,’ was privately printed in 1805. There seems to have been an earlier edition in 1795. The poem is written in the Spenserian stanza, and has decided merit (cf. Quarterly Review, May 1811). The verse is melodious, and the tale is told with pleasing directness and simplicity. It has suffered


text:
Page:The varieties of religious experience, a study in human nature.djvu/26

10 everything, we feel—quite apart from our legitimate impatience at the somewhat ridiculous swagger of the program, in view of what the authors are actually able to perform—menaced and negated in the springs of our innermost life. Such cold-blooded assimilations threaten, we think, to undo our soul's vital secrets, as if the same breath which should succeed in explaining their origin would simultaneously explain away their significance, and make them appear of no more preciousness, either, than the useful groceries of which M. Taine speaks.

Perhaps the commonest expression of this assumption that spiritual value is undone if lowly origin be asserted is seen in those comments which unsentimental people so often pass on their more sentimental acquaintances. Alfred believes in immortality so strongly because his temperament is so emotional. Fanny's extraordinary conscientiousness is merely a matter of over-instigated nerves. William's melancholy about the universe is due to bad digestion—probably his liver is torpid. Eliza's delight in her church is a symptom of her hysterical constitution. Peter would be less troubled about his soul if he would take more exercise in the open air, etc. A more fully developed example of the same kind of reasoning is the fashion, quite common nowadays among certain writers, of criticising the religious emotions by showing a connection between them and the sexual life. Conversion is a crisis of puberty and adolescence. The macerations of saints, and the devotion of missionaries, are only instances of the parental instinct of self-sacrifice gone astray. For the hysterical nun, starving for natural life, Christ is but an imaginary substitute for a more earthly object of affection. And the like.


text: No Treason/1

title: No Treason/1


text: No Treason/2

title: No Treason/2


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bhownaggree, Sir Mancherjee Merwanjee

BHOWNAGGREE, SIR MANCHERJEE MERWANJEE (1851-      ), Indian parliamentarian, the son of a Parsee merchant of Bombay, was born in Bombay Aug. 15 1851, and began life as a journalist, but when only 22 was appointed, on the death of his father, to succeed to the Bombay agency of the Kathiawar state of Bhavanagar. Called to the bar at Lincoln's Inn in 1885, in the following year the Maharaja appointed him judicial councillor, a post in which he introduced far-reaching reforms. Settling in England in 1891, he actively associated himself with public bodies connected with India. He was the head of the Parsee organization in Europe and chairman of the Indian Social Club. To the Imperial Institute building he contributed, in memory of his only sister, the eastern colonnade leading to the Indian section. His compatriot Dadabhai Naoroji was in the 1892-5 parliament, but Bhownaggree, elected in the latter year in the Unionist interest for N.E. Bethnal Green, was the only other Indian to enter the House of Commons, and the only one to be reëlected (1900). During his ten years there he impressed the House by the vigour and eloquence of his speeches on Indian matters, and he originated and unflaggingly maintained in and out of the House the long battle against the disabilities of Indians in South Africa and other overseas dominions of the Crown. His cogent and detailed statement of the case for Indians in the Transvaal after annexation was the basis of a blue-book (Cd. 2239, 1904), and was sent to Lord Milner by the Colonial Secretary, Alfred Lyttelton, with the observation that he felt much sympathy for the views expressed, and that it would be difficult to give a fully satisfactory answer. The practical result was that the proposals of the High Commissioner were in some important particulars rejected. Bhownaggree was one of the first Indians to press forward the need for technical and vocational education in India side by side with the literary instruction which was too exclusively maintained. He was made a C.I.E. in 1886 and K.C.I.E. in 1897. In early life he wrote a history of the constitution of the East India Company, and made a Gujarati translation of Queen Victoria's Life in the Highlands. During the World War he assisted in repelling German falsehoods regarding British rule in India by means of a widely circulated booklet entitled The Verdict of India.


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/121

 Rh Of this kind, too, was the ring "Dropper" which Odin had, and from which twelve other rings dropped every night; the apples which Idun, one of the goddesses, had, and of which, so soon as the Æsir ate, they became young again; the helm which Œgir, the sea giant had, which struck terror into all antagonists like the Ægis of Athene; and that wonderful mill which the mythical Frodi owned, of which we shall shortly speak.

Now, let us see what traces of this great god "Wish" and his choice-bairns and wishing-things we can find in these Tales, faint echoes of a mighty heathen voice, which once proclaimed the goodness of the great Father in the blessings which he bestowed on his chosen sons. We shall not have long to seek. In tale No. XX., p. 131, when Short-shanks meets those three old crook-backed hags who have only one eye, which he snaps up, and gets first a sword "that puts a whole army to flight, be it ever so great." We have the "one-eyed Odin," degenerated into an old hag, or rather by—no uncommon process—we have an old witch fused by popular tradition into a mixture of Odin and the three Nornir. Again, when he gets that wondrous ship "which can sail over fresh water and salt water, and over high hills and deep dales," and which is so small that he can put it into his pocket, and yet, when he came to use it, could hold five hundred men, we have plainly the Skith-blathnir of the Edda to the very life. So also in "The Best Wish," p. 252, the whole groundwork of this story rests on this old belief; and when we meet that pair of old scissors which cuts all manner of fine clothes out of the air, that tablecloth which covers itself with the best dishes you could think of, as soon as it was spread out, and that


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/122

cxvi tap which, as soon as it was turned, poured out the best of mead and wine, we have plainly another form of Frodi's wishing-quern,—another recollection of those things of choice about which the old mythology has so much to tell. Of the same kind are the tablecloth, the ram, and the stick in "The Lad who went to the North Wind," p. 228, and the rings in "The Three Princesses of Whiteland," p. 181, and in "Soria Moria Castle," p. 396. In the first of those stories, too, we find those "three brothers" who have stood on a moor " these hundred years fighting about a hat, a cloak, and a pair of boots," which had the virtue of making him who wore them invisible; choice things which will again remind the reader of the Nibelungen Lied, of the way in which Siegfried became possessed of the famous hoard of gold, and how he got that "cap of darkness" which was so useful to him in his remaining exploits. So again in "The Blue Belt," p. 155, what is that belt which, when the boy girded it on, "he felt as strong as if he could lift the whole hill," but Thor's "choicebelt;" and what is the daring boy himself, who overcomes the Troll, but Thor himself, as engaged in one of his adventures with the Giants? So, too, in "Little Annie the Goose-girl," p. 414, the stone which tells the Prince all the secrets of his brides is plainly the old Oskastein, or "wishing-stone." These instances will suffice to shew the prolonged faith in "Wish," and his choice things; a belief which, though so deeply rooted in the North, we have already traced to its home in the East, whence it stretches itself from pole to pole, and reappears in every race. We recognise it in the wishing-cap of Fortunatus, which is a Celtic legend; in the cornucopia of the Romans;


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/123

 Rh in the goat Amalthea among the Greeks; in the wishingcow and wishing-tree of the Hindoos; in the pumpkin-tree of the West Indian Ananzi stories; in the cow of the Servian legends, who spins yarn out of her ear; in the Sampo of the Finns; and in all those stories of cups, and glasses, and horns, and rings, and swords, seized by some bold spirit in the midst of a fairy revel, or earned by some kind deed rendered by mortal hand to one of the "good folk" in her hour of need, and with which the "luck" of that mortal's house was ever afterwards bound up; stories with which the local traditions of all lands are full, but which all pay unconscious homage to the worship of that great God, to whom so many heathen hearts so often turned as the divine realiser of their prayers, and the giver of all good things, until they came at last to make an idol out of their hopes and prayers, and to immortalise the very "Wish" itself.

Again, of all beliefs, that in which man has, at all times of his history, been most prone to set faith, is that of a golden age of peace and plenty, which had passed away, but which might be expected to return. Such a period was looked for when Augustus closed the temple of Janus, and peace, though perhaps not plenty, reigned over what the proud Roman called the habitable world. Such a period the early Christian expected when the Saviour was born, in the reign of that very Augustus; and such a period, some, whose thoughts are more set on earth than heaven, have hoped for ever since, with a hope which, though deferred for eighteen centuries, has not made their hearts


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/398

 about the same time. After printing several small volumes from the plates, they were compelled to lay aside the business for a time, and circumstances prevented them renewing it. The art underwent rapid improvement, so that, though Tilloch's patent remained unimpeached, it proved of little pecuniary value (see ; cf. ‘A brief Account of the Origin and Progress of Letterpress-plate or Stereotype Printing,’ by A. T[illoch], in the Philosophical Mag. 1801, x. 267–77). From Tilloch, third earl Stanhope [q. v.], derived much of his knowledge of the process of making stereotype plates.

In 1787 Tilloch removed to London, and in 1789, in connection with others, purchased the ‘Star,’ an evening daily paper, of which he remained editor until 1821. Towards the close of the eighteenth century the practice of forging bank of England notes was extremely common, and to remedy this Tilloch in 1790 laid before the British ministry a mode of printing which would render forgery impossible. Receiving no encouragement, he brought his process before the notice of the Commission d'Assignats at Paris, the members of which were anxious to adopt it, but were hindered by the outbreak of the war and the passing of the treasonable correspondence bill. In 1797 he submitted to the bank of England a specimen of a note engraved after his plan, accompanied by a certificate signed by [q. v.], [q. v.], (1749–1824) [q. v.], and other eminent engravers, to the effect that they did not believe it could be copied by any of the known arts of engraving. He could not, however, persuade the authorities to accept it, though in 1810 they adopted the process of Augustus Applegath, which Tilloch claimed in 1820, in a petition to parliament, to be virtually his own.

In 1797 he projected and established the ‘Philosophical Magazine,’ a journal devoted to the consideration of scientific subjects, and more especially intended for the publication of new discoveries and inventions. He devoted much of his time to the conduct of the magazine, of which he remained sole proprietor until 1822, when [q. v.] became associated with him. The only previous journal of this nature in London was the ‘Journal of Natural Philosophy, Chemistry, and the Arts,’ founded by (1753–1815) [q. v.] in 1797. It was incorporated with Tilloch's ‘Magazine’ in 1802.

On 20 Aug. 1808 Tilloch took out a patent (No. 3161) for ‘apparatus to be employed as a moving power to drive machinery and mill work.’ In later life he devoted much attention to the subject of scriptural prophecy, and, having joined the Sandemanians, occasionally preached to a congregation in Goswell Street. He did not, however, entirely lose his interest in physical science, for on 11 Jan. 1825 he took out a patent (No. 5066) for improvements in the ‘steam engine or apparatus connected therewith,’ and it is stated that the engineer, [q. v.], was considerably indebted to his suggestions. Tilloch was a member of numerous learned societies at home and on the continent, among others of the Scottish Society of Antiquaries, and of the Regia Academia Scientiarum at Munich. He collected manuscripts, coins, and medals, of which he left a considerable number.

He died in Barnsbury Street, Islington, on 26 Jan. 1825. His wife, Elizabeth Simpson, died in 1783, leaving one daughter, Elizabeth, who married [q. v.], the novelist.

Tilloch was the author of:
 * 1) ‘Dissertation on the opening of the Sealed Book,’ Arbroath, 8vo; 2nd edit. Perth, 1852; printed from a series of papers published in the ‘Star’ in 1808–9, signed ‘Biblicus.’ From the introduction it appears that the papers were intended to deal with the whole book of Revelation, but the subject was carried no further than the opening of the seals and the sounding of the first five trumpets (Notes and Queries, v. vii. 206).
 * 2) ‘Dissertations introductory to the Study and right Understanding of the Apocalypse,’ London, 1823, 8vo. Tilloch also edited the ‘Mechanic's Oracle,’ commenced in July 1824 and discontinued soon after his death.

A portrait of Tilloch, engraved by James Thomson from a painting by Frazer, was published in 1825 in the last number of the ‘Mechanic's Oracle,’ with a memoir reprinted from the ‘Imperial Magazine.’

TILLOTSON, JOHN (1630–1694), archbishop of Canterbury, was born at Old Haugh End, a substantial hillside house (still standing) in the chapelry of Sowerby, parish of Halifax, and baptised at the parish church of St. John the Baptist, Halifax. The entry in the register, under date 10 Oct. 1630, is ‘John Robert Tilletson (sic) Sourb.’ (for the explanation of a common misreading of the date see Notes and Queries, 26 May 1883, p. 405); one of his godfathers was Joshua


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/124

 cxviii sick. Such a period of peace and plenty, such a golden time, the Norseman could tell of in his mythic Frodi's reign, when gold or Frodi's meal, as it was called, was so plentiful that golden armlets lay untouched from year's end to year's end on the king's highway, and the fields bore crops unsown. Here, in England, the Anglo-Saxon Bede knew how to tell the same story of Edwin, the Northumbrian king, and when Alfred came to be mythic, the same legend was passed on from Edwin to the West Saxon monarch. The remembrance of "the bountiful Frodi" echoed in the songs of German poets long after the story which made him so bountiful had been forgotten; but the Norse Skalds could tell not only the story of Frodi's wealth and bounty, but also of his downfall and ruin. In Frodi's house were two maidens of that old giant race, Fenja and Menja. These daughters of the giant he had bought as slaves, and he made them grind his quern or hand-mill, Grotti, out of which he used to grind peace and gold. Even in that golden age one sees there were slaves, and Frodi, however bountiful to his thanes and people, was a hard taskmaster to his giant handmaidens. He kept them to the mill, nor gave them longer rest than the cuckoo's note lasted, or they could sing a song. But that quern was such that it ground anything that the grinder chose, though until then it had ground nothing but gold and peace. So the maidens ground and ground, and one sang their piteous tale in a strain worthy of Æschylus as the other worked—they prayed for rest and pity, but Frodi was deaf. Then they turned in giant mood, and


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/399

 Witton (1616–1674), afterwards an ejected minister. He was the second of four sons of Robert Tillotson (bur. 22 Feb. 1682–3, aged 91), a descendant of the family of Tilston of Tilston, Cheshire, and a prosperous clothworker at Sowerby, who became a member of the congregational church gathered at Sowerby in 1645 by Henry Root (d. 20 Oct. 1669, aged 80), but ceased his membership before Root's death. His mother was Mary (bur. 31 Aug. 1667), daughter of Thomas Dobson, gentleman, of Sowerby; she was mentally afflicted for many years before her death.

According to tradition, Tillotson in his tenth year was placed at the grammar school of Colne, Lancashire; he was probably afterwards at Heath grammar school, Halifax, to the funds of which his father had made a small contribution. On 23 April 1647 he was admitted pensioner at Clare Hall, Cambridge, and matriculated on 1 July. His tutor was David Clarkson [q. v.], who had succeeded the ejected Peter Gunning [q. v.] His ‘chamber-fellow and bed-fellow’ was Francis Holcroft [q. v.]; another chamber-fellow was John Denton [q. v.] The master of Clare was Ralph Cudworth [q. v.], who does not seem to have been popular in his college. Tillotson was not attracted by him, or by the school of ‘Cambridge platonists.’ In a letter to Root (dated Clare Hall, 6 Dec. 1649) he writes: ‘We have lesse hopes of procuring Mr. Tho. Goodwin for our master;’ the enforcement of the ‘engagement’ of allegiance to the then government ‘without a king or a house of lords’ was expected, and Tillotson, though he did not ‘at all scruple the taking of it,’ asked Root for his advice. He was a regular hearer of Thomas Hill (d. 1653) [q. v.], and a reader of William Twisse [q. v.]; the intellectual keenness of the Calvinistic theologians impressed him, but ‘he seemed to be an eclectic man, and not to bind himself to opinions’. He was never a hard student, and kept no commonplace books. He studied Cicero and was familiar with the Greek Testament. At midsummer 1650 he commenced B.A. Not long after, ‘in his fourth year,’ he had a dangerous illness, followed by ‘intermittent delirium;’ a sojourn in the bracing air of Sowerby re-established his health.

He acted as probationer fellow from 7 April 1651 (having been nominated by mandamus from the government). Two vacancies occurring, he and another were elected fellows about 27 Nov. 1651. It was afterwards ruled that he had succeeded Clarkson in Gunning's fellowship; Tillotson ‘was sure’ he had been admitted, not to Gunning's fellowship, but to one legally void by cession. His first pupil was John Beardmore, his biographer; another was Clarkson's nephew, Thomas Sharpe (d. 27 Aug. 1693, aged 60), founder of the presbyterian congregation at Leeds. Except on Sunday evenings he used no English with his pupils; ‘he spoke Latin exceedingly well.’ He had ‘a very great faculty’ in extemporary prayer, and a strong appetite for sermons, of which he usually heard four every Sunday and one each Wednesday. He proceeded M.A. in 1654, and kept the philosophy act with distinction in 1655.

At the end of 1656 or beginning of 1657 he went to London as tutor to the only son of Sir Edmond Prideaux [q. v.], to whom he acted as chaplain. Through Prideaux, then attorney-general, he obtained an exchequer grant of 1,000l. in compensation for building materials, meant for Clare Hall, but seized for the fortification of Cambridge. At his suggestion Joseph Diggons, formerly a fellow-commoner at Clare Hall, left the society an estate of 300l. a year. Tillotson was in London at the time of Cromwell's death (3 Sept. 1658). His unpublished letter (8 Sept.) to Theophilus Dillingham, D.D. [q. v.], gives particulars of the proclamation of Richard Cromwell. He was present on the fast day at Whitehall, in the following week, when Thomas Goodwin, D.D. [q. v.], and Peter Sterry [q. v.] used in prayer the fanatical expressions which he afterwards reported to Burnet.

His change of feeling with regard to Goodwin is the first decisive indication that he had outgrown the prepossessions of his early training. He had been deeply influenced at Cambridge by Chillingworth's ‘Religion of Protestants’ (1637); in London he had heard Ralph Brownrig [q. v.], become acquainted with John Hacket [q. v.], and formed a lasting friendship with William Bates, D.D. But to none of his contemporaries did he owe so much as to John Wilkins [q. v.] Towards the close of 1659 Wilkins had migrated from Oxford to fill the mastership of Trinity College, Cambridge, where, as Burnet says, ‘he joined himself … with those who studied to … take men off … from superstitions, conceits, and fierceness about opinions.’ Tillotson does not seem to have been then in residence; he met Wilkins for the first time in London shortly after the Restoration. The two men became very closely connected. Wilkins's bent for physical research was not shared by Tillotson, though he was admitted a member of the Royal Society in 1672; meantime he was finding his way, under Chillingworth's


text:
Page:No Treason, v6.djvu/7

 NO. VI.

THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY.

I.

Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either

title: Page:No Treason, v6.djvu/7


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/400

 guidance, out of the Calvinism which Wilkins retained.

The order for restoring Gunning to his fellowship was dated 20 June 1660. Apparently he did not at once claim it, for Tillotson remained in possession till February 1661, when Gunning insisted on his removal; this was effected the very day before Gunning's election as master of Corpus Christi College. Tillotson thought Gunning was moved by ‘some personal pique,’ and that an injustice was done him. He had not yet conformed, and was probably not in Anglican orders. The date of his ordination, without subscription, by Thomas Sydserf [q. v.] is conjectured by Birch to have been ‘probably in the latter end of 1660 or beginning of 1661.’ He was one of the nonconforming party to whom it was intended to offer preferment in the church. Had Edmund Calamy the elder [q. v.] accepted the bishopric of Coventry and Lichfield (kept open for him till December 1661), Tillotson was designed for a canonry at Lichfield. He was not in the commission for the Savoy conference, but in July 1661 he is specified by Baxter among ‘two or three scholars and laymen’ who attended as auditors on the nonconforming side. His first sermon was preached for his friend Denton at Oswaldkirk, North Riding of Yorkshire, but the date is not given. In September 1661 he took ‘upon but short warning’ Bates's place in the morning exercise at Cripplegate; the sermon was published (at first anonymously) and contains a characteristic quotation from John Hales of Eton. Some time in 1661 he became curate to Thomas Hacket, vicar of Cheshunt, Hertfordshire (afterwards bishop of Down and Connor), and deprived (1694), on Tillotson's advice (1691), for ‘scandalous neglect of his charge.’ At Cheshunt he lived with Sir Thomas Dacres ‘at the great house near the church,’ a house which he afterwards rented as a summer resort in conjunction with Stillingfleet. It seems probable that his was the signature, which appears as ‘John Tillots,’ to the petition presented on 27 Aug. 1662 (three days after the taking effect of the uniformity act) asking the king to ‘take some effectual course whereby we may be continued in the exercise of our ministry’ (, Lancashire, 1869, ii. 213). He won upon an anabaptist at Cheshunt, who preached ‘in a red coat,’ persuading him to give up his irregular ministry. Frequently he preached in London, especially for Wilkins at St. Lawrence Jewry. On 16 Dec. 1662 he was elected by the parishioners, patrons of St. Mary Aldermanbury, to succeed Calamy, the ejected perpetual curate. He declined; but in 1663 (mandate for induction, 18 June) he succeeded Samuel Fairclough [q. v.], the ejected rector of Kedington, Suffolk, being presented by Sir Thomas Barnardiston [q. v.] Happening to supply the place of the Tuesday lecturer at St. Lawrence Jewry, he was heard by Sir Edward Atkyns (1630–1698) [q. v.], then a bencher of Lincoln's Inn, by whose interest he was elected (26 Nov. 1663) preacher at Lincoln's Inn. Before June 1664 he resigned Kedington in favour of his curate; his own preaching had been distasteful to his puritan parishioners. Soon afterwards he was appointed Tuesday lecturer at St. Lawrence Jewry, of which church Wilkins was rector. This appointment, and the preachership at Lincoln's Inn, he retained until he became archbishop. Hickes affirms, and Burnet does not deny, that Tillotson gave the communion in Lincoln's Inn Chapel to some persons sitting; this practice he had certainly abandoned before 17 Feb. 1681–2, the date of his letter on the subject. Hickes further says that to avoid bowing at the name of Jesus ‘he used to step and bend backwards, casting up his eyes to heaven,’ whence Charles II said of him that ‘he bowed the wrong way, as the quakers do when they salute their friends.’

Tillotson cultivated his talent as a preacher with great care. He studied, besides biblical matter, the ethical writers of antiquity, and among the fathers, Basil and Chrysostom. The ease of his delivery made hearers suppose that he only used short notes, but he told Edward Maynard [q. v.], his successor at Lincoln's Inn, ‘that he had always written every word,’ and ‘us'd to get it by heart,’ but gave this up because ‘it heated his head so much a day or two before and after he preach'd.’ His example led William Wake [q. v.] ‘to preach no longer without book, since everybody, even Dr. Tillotson, had left it off.’ His gifts had not availed him with a country parish, but in London he got the ear, not only of a learned profession, but of the middle class. People who had heard him on Sunday went on Tuesday in hope of listening again to the same discourse. Baxter, who had ‘no great acquaintance’ with him, listened to his preaching with admiration of its spirit. Hitherto the pulpit had been the great stronghold of puritanism, under Tillotson it became a powerful agency for weaning men from puritan ideas. The consequent change of style was welcomed by Charles II, who, says Burnet, ‘had little or no literature, but true and sound sense, and a right notion of style;’ under royal favour, cumbrous construction and inordinate length were replaced by clearness and


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/401

 what passed in that age for brevity; the mincing of texts and doctrines was superseded by addresses to reason and feeling, in a strain which, never impassioned, was always suasive.

When Tillotson made suit during 1663 for the hand of Oliver Cromwell's niece, Elizabeth French, her stepfather, John Wilkins, ‘upon her desiring to be excused,’ said: ‘Betty, you shall have him; for he is the best polemical divine this day in England.’ He had published nothing as yet of a polemical kind, but Wilkins rightly judged the effect of his pulpit work, as a practical antidote to the danger of popery, supervening upon the prevalent irreligion. Such was the tenor of his first famous sermon, ‘The Wisdom of being Religious’ (1664); the dedication to the lord mayor curiously anticipates the tone of Butler's ‘advertisement’ to the ‘Analogy’ (1736), with this difference, that by Butler's time the atheism of the age had (largely owing to the labours of Tillotson's school) been reduced to deism. His expressly polemic writing against Roman catholicism began with his ‘Rule of Faith’ (1666) in answer to John Sergeant [q. v.] Hickes thought he owed much to the suggestions of Zachary Cradock [q. v.], which Burnet denies. The work is addressed to Stillingfleet, and has an appendix by him. John Austin (1613–1669) [q. v.] took part in the discussion, which really turned on the authority of reason in religious controversy. An argument against transubstantiation, introduced by Tillotson in his ‘Rule of Faith’ and developed in his later polemical writings, led Hume to balance experience against testimony in his ‘Essay on Miracles’ (1748).

In 1666 Tillotson took the degree of D.D. His preferment was not long delayed. He became chaplain to Charles II, who gave him, in succession to Gunning, the second prebend at Canterbury (14 March 1670), and promoted him to the deanery (4 Nov. 1672) in succession to Thomas Turner (1591–1672) [q. v.], though Charles disliked his preaching against popery, and his sermon at Whitehall (early in 1672) on ‘the hazard of being saved in the Church of Rome’ had caused the Duke of York to cease attending the chapel royal. With the deanery of Canterbury he held a prebend (Ealdland) at St. Paul's (18 Dec. 1675), exchanging it (14 Feb. 1676–7) for a better (Oxgate). This last preferment was given him by Heneage Finch, first earl of Nottingham [q. v.], at the suggestion of his chaplain, John Sharp (1645–1714) [q. v.], whose father had business connections with Tillotson's brother Joshua (a London oilman, whose name appears as ‘Tillingson’ in the directory of 1677; he died on 16 Sept. 1678).

It is clear from Baxter's account that Birch is wrong in connecting Tillotson (and Stillingfleet) with the proposals for comprehension of nonconformists prepared by Wilkins and Hezekiah Burton [q. v.] in January 1668. It was in October or November 1674 that Tillotson and Stillingfleet first approached the leading nonconformists, through Bates. Tillotson and Baxter jointly drafted a bill for comprehension, which Baxter prints; those formerly ordained ‘by parochial pastors only’ were now to be authorised by ‘a written instrument,’ purposely ambiguous. The negotiation was ended by a letter (11 April 1675) from Tillotson to Baxter, announcing the hopelessness of obtaining the concurrence of the king or ‘a considerable part of the bishops,’ and withholding his name from publication. He preached, however, at the Yorkshire feast (3 Dec. 1678), in favour of concessions to nonconformist scruples. He took great interest in the efforts made by the nonconformist Thomas Gouge [q. v.] for education and evangelisation in Wales, acted as a trustee of Gouge's fund, and preached his funeral sermon (1681) in a strain of fervid eulogy.

In May 1675 Tillotson visited his father, who had ‘traded all away,’ and to whose support he contributed 40l. a year. He preached at Sowerby on Whitsunday (23 May) and the following Sunday at Halifax. Oliver Heywood reports the puritan judgment on his sermons as plain and honest, ‘though some expressions were accounted dark and doubtful.’ Halifax tradition, as reported by Hunter, represents Robert Tillotson as saying ‘that his son had preached well, but he believed he had done more harm than good.’ His connection with William of Orange, according to a hearsay account preserved by Eachard, dates from November 1677, when William visited Canterbury after his marriage; the details, as Birch has shown, are not trustworthy.

Much stir was made by his sermon at Whitehall on 2 April 1680, in vindication of the protestant religion ‘from the charge of singularity and novelty.’ He had prepared his sermon with ‘little notice,’ having been called on owing to the illness of the appointed preacher. In an unguarded passage he maintained that private liberty of conscience did not extend to making proselytes from ‘the establish'd religion,’ in the absence of a miraculous warrant. According to Hickes, who is confirmed by Calamy, ‘a witty Lord’ signalised this as Hobbism, and procured the printing of the sermon by


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/402

 royal command. Gunning complained of it in the House of Lords as playing into the hands of Rome. John Howe [q. v.], in the same strain, drew up an expostulatory letter, and delivered it in person. At Tillotson's suggestion they drove together to dine at Sutton Court with Lady Fauconberg (Cromwell's daughter Mary), and discussed the letter on the way, when Tillotson ‘at length fell to weeping freely’ and owned his mistake. Yet the passage was never withdrawn, and is scarcely mended by a qualifying paragraph added in 1686. The nonconformists never treated Tillotson's doctrine as levelled against themselves, knowing that by ‘the establish'd religion’ Tillotson meant protestantism. It is plain, however, that the principle of obedience to constituted authority, as providential, was accepted by him from the period of the engagement (1649) onwards. His famous letter (20 July 1683) to William Russell, lord Russell [q. v.], printed ‘much against his will,’ maintains the unlawfulness of resistance ‘if our religion and rights should be invaded;’ his subsequent exception of ‘the case of a total subversion of the constitution’ is rather lame in argument, though quite consistent with his real mind, protestantism being identified with the constitution. He is said to have drawn up the letter (24 Nov. 1688) addressed to James II by Prince George of Denmark [q. v.] on his defection from his father-in-law's cause; that this letter identifies the Lutheran religion with that of the church of England is no disproof of the story.

He preached before William at St. James's on 6 Jan. 1689; on 14 Jan. a small meeting was held at his house to consult about concessions to dissenters, with Sancroft's approval. On 27 March he was made clerk of the closet to the king; in August the Canterbury chapter appointed him to exercise archiepiscopal jurisdiction, owing to the suspension of Sancroft; in September he was nominated to the deanery of St. Paul's (elected 19 Nov., installed on 21 Nov.). Apparently he had declined a bishopric, but, on his kissing hands, William intimated that he was to succeed Sancroft. This was on Burnet's advice, and was contrary to the inclination of Tillotson, who honestly thought he could do more good as he was, and have more influence, ‘for the people naturally love a man that will take great pains and little preferment.’ In a later paper (13 March 1692) he allows ‘that there may perhaps be as much ambition in declining greatness as in courting it.’

The Toleration Act was carried without difficulty (royal assent 24 May 1689); a bill for comprehension was passed by the lords with some amendments, but on reaching the commons it was held over for the judgment of convocation. Burnet felt that this would ruin the scheme. Tillotson's strong common-sense was alive to the odium of a new parliamentary reformation, and urged William to summon convocation and appoint a smaller body to frame proposals for its consideration. A commission was issued to thirty divines (including ten bishops) on 13 Sept. 1689. On the same day Tillotson formulated seven concessions which would ‘probably be made’ to nonconformists. The commission met on 3 Oct., and held sittings till 18 Nov. Very extensive alterations in the prayer-book found favour with a majority, the chief revisers being Burnet, Stillingfleet, Simon Patrick [q. v.], Richard Kidder [q. v.], Thomas Tenison [q. v.], and Tillotson (full details were first given in ‘Alterations in the Book of Common Prayer,’ &c., printed by order of the House of Commons, 2 June 1854). Tillotson also had a scheme for a new book of homilies.

Convocation met on 21 Nov. Much canvassing had taken place for the elected members of the lower house, who were predominantly high churchmen, the man of most note being John Mill [q. v.] Tillotson was proposed as prolocutor by John Sharp (1645–1714) [q. v.], his successor in the deanery of Canterbury. William Jane [q. v.] was elected by 55 votes to 28; his Latin speech, on being presented to the upper house, was against amendment, and closed with the words ‘Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari.’ The leaders of the lower house ignored the commission, declining to give nonjurors occasion to say they were for the old church as well as for the old king. Ineffectual attempts were made to win them over. On 24 Jan. 1690 convocation was adjourned, and dissolved on 6 Feb.

The state of contemporary feeling is well illustrated by the outcry against Tillotson's sermon on ‘the eternity of hell torments,’ preached before the queen on 7 March 1690. He sought to give reality to the doctrine, presenting it as a moral deterrent, but was accused of undermining it to allay Mary's dread of the consequences of her action as a daughter. Hickes makes the groundless suggestion that he borrowed his argument from ‘an old sceptick of Norwich,’ meaning John Whitefoot (1601–1699), author of the funeral sermon for Joseph Hall [q. v.] Whitefoot's ‘Dissertation,’ which maintains the destruction of the wicked, is printed in Lee's ‘Sermons and Fragments attributed to Isaac Barrow,’ 1834, pp. 202 sq. (cf., Works, ed. Napier, 1859, i. p. xxix).


text:
Page:No Treason, v6.djvu/8

4 or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind any body but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:

 * "We, the people of the United States [that is, the people then existing in the United States], in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz: a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any intention or desire, nor that they imagined they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquillity, liberty, etc.

Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:

We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.

This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.

When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he

title: Page:No Treason, v6.djvu/8


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/403

 Tillotson's reluctance to accept the see of Canterbury was overcome on 18 Oct. 1690, but he stipulated for delay, and that he should not be made ‘a wedge to drive out’ Sancroft. He was not nominated till 22 April 1691, elected 16 May, and consecrated 31 May (Whitsunday) in Bow church by Peter Mews [q. v.], bishop of Winchester, and five other bishops. Sancroft, who was still at Lambeth, refused to leave till the issue of a writ of ejectment on 23 June. Tillotson received the temporalities on 6 July, and removed to Lambeth on 26 Nov., after improvements, including ‘a large apartment’ for his wife. No wife of an archbishop had been seen at Lambeth since 1570.

His primacy was brief and not eventful. He exercised a liberal hospitality, and showed much moderation both to nonjurors and to nonconformists. He took no part in political affairs. No business was entrusted to convocation during his primacy. He seems to have initiated the policy of governing the church by royal injunctions addressed to the bishops; those of 13 Feb. 1689 were probably, those of 15 Feb. 1695 certainly, drawn up on his advice. Sharp consulted him about the case of Richard Frankland [q. v.], who had set up a nonconformist academy for ‘university learning.’ Tillotson replied (14 June 1692) that he ‘would never do anything to infringe the act of toleration,’ and then suggested, as ‘the fairest and softest way of ridding your hands of this business,’ that Sharp should explain to Frankland that the grounds for withdrawing a license were applicable also to conformists.

In 1693 appeared his four lectures on the Socinian controversy. He had delivered them at St. Lawrence Jewry in 1679–80, and now published them as an answer to doubts of his orthodoxy, based upon his intimacy with Thomas Firmin [q. v.], whose philanthropic schemes he had encouraged. His connection with Firmin had indeed been singularly close. He had acted as godfather to his eldest son (1665); as dean of Canterbury (1672) he had trusted him to find supplies for the lectureship at St. Lawrence Jewry; he now welcomed him to his table at Lambeth. The four lectures prove conclusively that Tillotson had no Socinian leaning; but their courteous tone and their recognition of the good temper of Socinian controversialists, ‘who want nothing but a good cause,’ gave offence. An incautious expression in a supplementary sermon on the Trinity (1693), missed by Leslie (Charge of Socinianism, 1695) but noted by George Smith (1693–1756) [q. v.], opened the way to the position afterwards taken by Samuel Clarke (1675–1729) [q. v.], assigning to our Lord every divine perfection, save only self-existence. Thus Tillotson unwittingly dropped the first hint of the Arian controversy, which arose on the exhaustion of the Socinian argument. Firmin employed Stephen Nye [q. v.] on a critique of Tillotson's lectures. Shortly before his death Tillotson read these ‘Considerations’ (1694), and remarked to Firmin, ‘My lord of Sarum shall humble your writers.’ Burnet's ‘Exposition’ was not published till 1699, but Tillotson had already revised the work in manuscript, and in one of the last letters he wrote (23 Oct. 1694) expresses his satisfaction, except on one point, the treatment of the Athanasian creed, adding, ‘I wish we were well rid of it.’ He revised also a portion of the ‘Vindication’ (1695) of his four sermons by John Williams (1634–1709) [q. v.]

At the end of 1687 Tillotson had received the warning of an apoplectic stroke. He was seized with paralysis in Whitehall chapel on Sunday, 18 Nov. 1694, but remained throughout the service. His speech was affected, but his mind clear. He is said to have recommended Tenison as his successor. During the last two nights of his life he was attended by Robert Nelson [q. v.], his correspondent from 1680 and his attached friend, though a nonjuror. He died in Nelson's arms on 22 Nov. 1694, and was buried on 30 Nov. in the chancel of St. Lawrence Jewry, where is a monument (erected by his widow) with medallion bust (engraved in Hutchinson's ‘Life’). Burnet preached a funeral sermon. He died penniless; ‘if his first-fruits had not been forgiven him by the king, his debts could not have been paid.’ His posthumous sermons afterwards sold for two thousand five hundred guineas. His library was put on sale, 9 April 1695, at fixed prices (see Bibliotheca Tillotsoniana, 1695).

He married (23 Feb. 1664) Elizabeth (d. 20 Jan. 1702), only child of Peter French, D.D. (d. 17 June 1655), by the Protector's sister Robina, who, after a year of widowhood, married, as her second husband, John Wilkins. Neither of his children survived him; his elder daughter, Mary (d. November 1687), married James Chadwick (d. 1697), and left two sons and a daughter (who married a son of Edward Fowler, D.D. [q. v.]); his younger daughter, Elizabeth, died in 1681. To Mrs. Tillotson, in accordance with a promise of William III, tardily fulfilled, was granted (2 May 1695) an annuity of 400l.; by the efforts of Dean William Sherlock [q. v.] and Robert Nelson this was increased (18 Aug. 1698) to 600l., enabling her


text:
User talk:ELApro

--Longfellow (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:ELApro


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/404

Tillotson to provide for the education of her nephew, Robert Tillotson, as well as to maintain two of her grandchildren.

Testimony is unanimous as to Tillotson's sweetness of disposition, good humour, absolute frankness, tender-heartedness, and generosity. A sensitive man, he bore with an unruffled spirit the calumnious insults heaped upon him by opponents. He spent a fifth of his income in charity. His interest in learning is shown by his encouragement of [q. v.], and by his obtaining preferment for [q. v.] and, D.D. (1645–1699) [q. v.]; his appreciation of intellectual power by his editorial work in connection with the manuscripts of and  (1630–1677) [q. v.], though it is true that his modernising of Barrow's style proves the wisdom of not permitting him to mend the English of the collects. He was perhaps the only primate who took first rank in his day as a preacher, and he thoroughly believed in the religious efficacy of the pulpit; ‘good preaching and good living,’ he told Beardmore in 1661, ‘will gain upon people.’

The first collected edition of Tillotson's works contains fifty-four sermons and the ‘Rule of Faith;’ two hundred were added in succeeding editions, edited by Ralph Barker, 1695–1704, 8vo, 14 vols., and reprinted 1728, fol., 3 vols. The best edition is edited, with ‘life,’ by Birch, 1752, fol., 3 vols. (contains 255 sermons, and is otherwise complete). Editions of single sermons and of the works, and selections from them, are very numerous; the latest is a selection annotated by G. W. Weldon, 1886, 8vo. The transubstantiation discourse was translated into French, 1685, 12mo; a selection of the sermons in French appeared at Amsterdam, 1713–18, 2 vols. 8vo; in German at Dresden, 1728, 8vo; and Helmstadt, 1738–9, 8 vols. 8vo (with life, revised by Mosheim). Transcripts in French of some of his sermons, dated 1679–80, are in Addit. MS. 27874. Some letters to Sir R. Atkins of 1686–9 are in Addit. MS. 9828.

Besides the monument in St. Lawrence Jewry, there is a mural memorial in the parish church at Halifax. In Sowerby church is a full-length statue by Joseph Wilton, R.A. (1722–1803), erected at the cost of George Stansfeld (1725–1805) of Field House. Tillotson's portrait was painted by Lely during his tenure of the deanery, and in 1694 by Kneller. The Lely portrait was engraved by A. Blooteling and the Kneller by Houbraken, R. White, J. Simon Faber, Vertue, and many others. In a third portrait by Mary Beale, now at Lambeth (engraved by White and Vanderbank), he wears a wig, and is the first archbishop of Canterbury so depicted. A fourth portrait (also by Mary Beale) was bought for the National Portrait Gallery in 1860. In person he was of middle height, with fresh complexion, brown hair, and large speaking eyes; when young very thin, but corpulent as he advanced in years.

[Of primary importance for Tillotson's life are ‘Some Memorials’ by Beardmore, ‘written upon the news of his death,’ and printed as an appendix by Birch. Burnet's funeral sermon, 1694, evidently uses, not always correctly, the information supplied by Beardmore. Of criticisms upon Burnet's delineation the most valuable are in ‘Some Discourses,’ 1695, by George Hickes, disfigured by animus, but not always met by Burnet's ‘Reflections,’ 1696, in reply. The ‘Life,’ 1717, by F[rancis] H[utchinson], has been superseded (not entirely) by Birch's ‘Life,’ 1752; 2nd edit. 1753. The ‘Remarks,’ 1754, on Birch by George Smith are of little value. Birch's volume is a maze of general biography, but as a life of Tillotson it is inferior to the article by P.[?William Nicolls, D.D.] in the Biographia Britannica, 1763 (the writer knew Tillotson's nephew, Robert, at Cambridge, 1722–28). See also Reliquiæ Baxterianæ, 1696, ii. 219, 337, 437, iii. 15, 19, 78, 110, 131, 156, 157, 179; Calamy's Abridgment, 1713, pp. 350 sq., 439 sq.; Calamy's Account, 1713, pp. 86, 795; Whiston's Memoirs, 1753, pp. 24 sq.; Gent. Mag. 1774 p. 219, 1779 p. 404; Watson's Hist. of History of Halifax, 1775, p. 294; Granger's Biographical History of England, 1779, iii. 256, iv. 297; Noble's Continuation of Granger, 1806, i. 77; Chaloner Smith's Mezzotinto Portraits, 1883, pp. 431, 937, 1120; Evans's Cat. of Engraved Portraits, i. 347; Cardwell's Documentary Annals, 1839, ii. 326 sq.; Cardwell's History of Conferences, 1841; Hunter's Oliver Heywood, 1842, pp. 239, 435; Lathbury's History of Nonjurors, 1845; Lathbury's History of Convocation, 1853; Le Neve's Fasti (Hardy), 1854; Taylor's Revised Liturgy of 1689, 1855; Lathbury's History of the Book of Common Prayer, 1858, pp. 383 sq.; Miall's Nonconformity in Yorkshire, 1868, p. 365; Hunt's Religious Thought in England, 1871 vol. ii., 1873 vol. iii.; Carr's History of Colne, 1874, p. 9; Nonconformist Register (Turner), 1881, p. 67; Oliver Heywood's Diaries (Turner), 1881, ii. 32; Stoughton's Religion in England, 1881, v. 97 sq.; Stansfeld's History of the Family of Stansfeld, 1885, p. 209; Perry's Hist. of the Engl Church, 1891, ii. 554 sq.; extracts from parish registers of Halifax; extracts from parish registers of Sowerby, per Rev. T. Hinkley; information and extracts from the records of Clare Coll. Cambridge per the Rev. E. Atkinson, D.D., master.]  TILLY, WILLIAM, (d. 1494), prior of Christ Church, Canterbury. [See .]


text:
Page:No Treason, v6.djvu/9

5 is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.

So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.

So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquillity, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their object was, not "to secure to them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.

It cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of the United States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as "ourselves." Nor does a corporation, in legal language,

title: Page:No Treason, v6.djvu/9