text:
Page:The Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster.djvu/338

His argument consists of two propositions and an inference. His propositions are,—

1. That the Constitution is a compact between the States.

2. That a compact between two, with authority reserved to one to interpret its terms, would be a surrender to that one of all power whatever.

3. Therefore, (such is his inference,) the general government does not possess the authority to construe its own powers.

Now, Sir, who does not see, without the aid of exposition or detection, the utter confusion of ideas involved in this so elaborate and systematic argument.

The Constitution, it is said, is a compact between States; the States, then, and the States only, are parties to the compact. How comes the general government itself a party? Upon the honorable gentleman's hypothesis, the general government is the result of the compact, the creature of the compact, not one of the parties to it. Yet the argument, as the gentleman has now stated it, makes the government itself one of its own creators. It makes it a party to that compact to which it owes its own existence.

For the purpose of erecting the Constitution on the basis of a compact, the gentleman considers the States as parties to that compact; but as soon as his compact is made, then he chooses to consider the general government, which is the offspring of that compact, not its offspring, but one of its parties; and so, being a party, without the power of judging on the terms of compact. Pray, Sir, in what school is such reasoning as this taught?

If the whole of the gentleman's main proposition were conceded to him,—that is to say, if I admit, for the sake of the argument, that the Constitution is a compact between States,—the inferences which he draws from that proposition are warranted by no just reasoning. If the Constitution be a compact between States, still that Constitution, or that compact, has established a government, with certain powers; and whether it be one of those powers, that it shall construe and interpret for itself the terms of the compact, in doubtful cases, is a question which can only be decided by looking to the compact, and inquiring what provisions it contains on this point. Without any inconsistency with natural reason, the government even thus created might be trusted with this power of construction. The extent of its powers, therefore, must still be sought for in the instrument itself.

If the old Confederation had contained a clause, declaring that resolutions of the Congress should be the supreme law of the land, any State law or constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, and that a committee of Congress, or any other body created by it, should possess judicial powers, extending to all cases arising under resolutions of Congress, then the power of ultimate decision would have been vested in Congress under the Confederation, although that Confederation was a compact between States; and for this plain reason,—that it would have been competent to the States, who alone were parties to the compact, to agree who should decide in cases of dispute arising on the construction of the compact.

For the same reason, Sir, if I were now to concede to the gentleman his principal proposition, namely, that the Constitution is a compact between States, the question would still be, What provision is made, in this compact, to settle points of disputed construction, or contested power, that shall come into controversy? And this question would still be answered, and conclusively answered, by the Constitution itself.

While the gentleman is contending against construction, he himself is setting up the most loose and dangerous construction. The Constitution declares, that the laws of Congress passed in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. No construction is necessary here. It declares, also, with equal plainness and precision, that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to every case arising under the


text:
Page:The Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster.djvu/339

 laws of Congress. This needs no construction. Here is a law, then, which is declared to be supreme; and here is a power established, which is to interpret that law. Now, Sir, how has the gentleman met this? Suppose the Constitution to be a compact, yet here are its terms; and how does the gentleman get rid of them? He cannot argue the seal off the bond, nor the words out of the instrument. Here they are; what answer does he give to them? None in the world, Sir, except, that the effect of this would be to place the States in a condition of inferiority; and that it results from the very nature of things, there being no superior, that the parties must be their own judges! Thus closely and cogently does the honorable gentleman reason on the words of the Constitution. The gentleman says, if there be such a power of final decision in the general government, he asks for the grant of that power. Well, Sir, I show him the grant. I turn him to the very words. I show him that the laws of Congress are made supreme; and that the judicial power extends, by express words, to the interpretation of these laws. Instead of answering this, he retreats into the general reflection, that it must result from the nature of things, that the States, being parties, must judge for themselves.

I have admitted, that, if the Constitution were to be considered as the creature of the State governments, it might be modified, interpreted, or construed according to their pleasure. But, even in that case, it would be necessary that they should agree. One alone could not interpret it conclusively; one alone could not construe it; one alone could not modify it. Yet the gentleman's doctrine is, that Carolina alone may construe and interpret that compact which equally binds all, and gives equal rights to all.

So, then, Sir, even supposing the Constitution to be a compact between the States, the gentleman's doctrine, nevertheless, is not maintainable; because, first, the general government is not a party to that compact, but a government established by it, and vested by it with the powers of trying and deciding doubtful questions; and secondly, because, if the Constitution be regarded as a compact, not one State only, but all the States, are parties to that compact, and one can have no right to fix upon it her own peculiar construction.

So much, Sir, for the argument, even if the premises of the gentleman were granted, or could be proved. But, Sir, the gentleman has failed to maintain his leading proposition. He has not shown, it cannot be shown, that the Constitution is a compact between State governments. The Constitution itself, in its very front, refutes that idea; it declares that it is ordained and established by the people of the United States. So far from saying that it is established by the governments of the several States, it does not even say that it is established by the people of the several States; but it pronounces that it is established by the people of the United States, in the aggregate. The gentleman says, it must mean no more than the people of the several States. Doubtless, the people of the several States, taken collectively, constitute the people of the United States; but it is in this, their collective capacity, it is as all the people of the United States, that they establish the Constitution. So they declare; and words cannot be plainer than the words used.

When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the States, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the States, as States, were parties to it. We had no other general government. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. They undertook to form a general government, which should stand on a new basis; not a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between States, but a Constitution; a popular government, founded in popular

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


text:
Page:The Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster.djvu/340

 election, directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided into branches with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. They ordained such a government, they gave it the name of a Constitution, and therein they established a distribution of powers between this, their general government, and their several State governments. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. Their own power over their own instrument remains. But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the States.

The gentleman, Sir, finds analogy where I see none. He likens it to the case of a treaty, in which, there being no common superior, each party must interpret for itself, under its own obligation of good faith. But this is not a treaty, but a constitution of government, with powers to execute itself, and fulfil its duties.

I admit, Sir, that this government is a government of checks and balances; that is, the House of Representatives is a check on the Senate, and the Senate is a check on the House, and the President a check on both. But I cannot comprehend him, or, if I do, I totally differ from him, when he applies the notion of checks and balances to the interference of different governments. He argues, that, if we transgress our constitutional limits, each State, as a State, has a right to check us. Does he admit the converse of the proposition, that we have a right to check the States? The gentleman's doctrines would give us a strange jumble of authorities and powers, instead of governments of separate and defined powers. It is the part of wisdom, I think, to avoid this; and to keep the general government and the State government each in its proper sphere, avoiding as carefully as possible every kind of interference.

Finally, Sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the States will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. They will not destroy it, they will not impair it; they will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! Ah! Sir, this is but the old story. All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference. It is the common pretence. But I take leave of the subject.


text:
Page:Webster and Hayne's Celebrated Speeches.djvu/8

4 murdered come back, like the ghost of Banquo, to “sear the eyeballs of the gentleman,” and will it not down at his bidding? Are dark visions of broken hopes, and honors lost forever, still floating before his heated imagination? Sir, if it be his object to thrust me between the gentleman from Missouri and himself, in order to rescue the east from the contest it has provoked with the west, he shall not be gratified. Sir, I will not be dragged into the defence of my friend from Missouri. The south shall not be forced into a conflict not its own. The gentleman from Missouri is able to fight his own battles. The gallant west needs no aid from the south to repel any attack which may be made on them from any quarter. Let the gentleman from Massachusetts controvert the facts and arguments of the gentleman from Missouri, if he can—and if he win the victory, let him wear the honors; I shall not deprive him of his laurels.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, in reply to my remarks on the injurious operations of our land system on the prosperity of the west, pronounced an extravagant eulogium on the paternal care which the government had extended towards the west, to which he attributed all that was great and excellent in the present condition of the new states. The language of the gentleman on this topic fell upon my ears like the almost forgotten tones of the tory leaders of the British Parliament, at the commencement of the American revolution. They, too, discovered that the colonies had grown great under the fostering care of the mother country; and I must confess, while listening to the gentleman, I thought the appropriate reply to his argument was to be found in the remark of a celebrated orator, made on that occasion: “They have grown great in spite of your protection.”

The gentleman, in commenting on the policy of the government in relation to the new states, has introduced to our notice a certain Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, to whom he attributes the celebrated ordinance of ’87, by which he tells us, “slavery was forever excluded from the new states north of the Ohio.” After eulogizing the wisdom of this provision in terms of the most extravagant praise, he breaks forth in admiration of the greatness of Nathan Dane—and great indeed he must be, if it be true, as stated by the senator from Massachusetts, that “he was greater than Solon and Lycurgus, Minos, Numa Pompilius, and all the legislators and philosophers of the world,” ancient and modern. Sir, to such high authority it is certainly my duty, in a becoming spirit of humility, to submit. And yet, the gentleman will pardon me, when I say, that it is a little unfortunate for the fame of this great legislator, that the gentleman from Missouri should have proved that he was not the author of the ordinance of ’87, on which the senator from Massachusetts has reared so glorious a monument to his name. Sir, I doubt not the senator will feel some compassion for our ignorance, when I tell him, that so little are we acquainted with the modern great men of New England, that until he informed us yesterday that we possessed a Solon and a Lycurgus in the person of Nathan Dane, he was only known to the south as a member of a celebrated assembly, called and known by the name of the “Hartford Convention.” In the proceedings of that assembly, which I hold in my hand, (at p. 19,) will be found, in a few lines, the history of Nathan Dane; and a little farther on, there is conclusive evidence of that ardent devotion to the interest of the new states, which, it seems, has given him a just claim to the title of “Father of the West.” By the 2d resolution of the “Hartford Convention,” it is declared, “that it is expedient to attempt


text:
Page:Webster and Hayne's Celebrated Speeches.djvu/9

Rh to make provision for restraining Congress in the exercise of an unlimited power to make new states, and admitting them into the Union.” So much for Nathan Dane, of Beverly, Massachusetts.

In commenting upon my views in relation to the public lands, the gentleman insists, that it being one of the conditions of the grants that these lands should be applied to “the common benefit of all the states, they must always remain a fund for revenue;” and adds, “they must be treated as so much treasure.” Sir, the gentleman could hardly find language strong enough to convey his disapprobation of the policy which I had ventured to recommend to the favorable consideration of the country. And what, sir, was that policy, and what is the difference between that gentleman and myself on that subject? I threw out the idea that the public lands ought not to be reserved forever, as “a great fund for revenue;” that they ought not to be “treated as a great treasure;” but that the course of our policy should rather be directed towards the creation of new states, and building up great and flourishing communities.

Now, sir, will it be believed, by those who now hear me,—and who listened to the gentleman’s denunciation of my doctrines yesterday,—that a book then lay open before him—nay, that he held it in his hand, and read from it certain passages of his own speech, delivered to the House of Representatives in 1825, in which speech he himself contended for the very doctrines I had advocated, and almost in the same terms? Here is the speech of the Hon. Daniel Webster, contained in the first volume of Gales and Seaton’s Register of Debates, (p. 251,) delivered in the House of Representatives on the 18th of January, 1825, in a debate on the Cumberland road—the very debate from which the senator read yesterday. I shall read from the celebrated speech two passages, from which it will appear that both as to the past and the future policy of the government in relation to the public lands, the gentleman from Massachusetts maintained, in 1825, substantially the same opinions which I have advanced, but which he now so strongly reprobates. I said, sir, that the system of credit sales by which the west had been kept constantly in debt to the United States, and by which their wealth was drained off to be expended elsewhere, had operated injuriously on their prosperity. On this point the gentleman from Massachusetts, in January, 1825, expressed himself thus: “There could be no doubt, if gentlemen looked at the money received into the treasury from the sale of the public lands to the west, and then looked to the whole amount expended by government, (even including the whole amount of what was laid out for the army,) the latter must be allowed to be very inconsiderable, and there must be a constant drain of money from the west to pay for the public lands. It might indeed be said that this was no more than the refluence of capital which had previously gone over the mountains. Be it so. Still its practical effect was to produce inconvenience, if not distress, by absorbing the money of the people.”

I contended that the public lands ought not to be treated merely as “a fund for revenue;” that they ought not to be hoarded “as a great treasure.” On this point the senator expressed himself thus: “Government, he believed, had received eighteen or twenty millions of dollars from the public lands, and it was with the greatest satisfaction he adverted to the change which had been introduced in the mode of paying for them; yet he could never think the national domain was to be regarded as any great source of revenue. The great object of the government, in respect of these lands, was not so much the money derived from their sale, as it was


text:
Page:Webster and Hayne's Celebrated Speeches.djvu/10

6 the getting them settled. What he meant to say was, he did not think they ought to hug that domain, which was to enrich the Exchequer.”

Now, Mr. President, it will be seen that the very doctrines which the gentleman so indignantly abandons were urged by him in 1825; and if I had actually borrowed my sentiments from those which he then avowed, I could not have followed more closely in his footsteps. Sir, it is only since the gentleman quoted this book, yesterday, that my attention has been turned to the sentiments he expressed in 1825; and if I had remembered them, I might possibly have been deterred from uttering sentiments here, which, it might well be supposed, I had borrowed from that gentleman.

In 1825, the gentleman told the world that the public lands “ought not to be treated as a treasure.” He now tells us that “they must be treated as so much treasure.” What the deliberate opinion of the gentleman on this subject may be, belongs not to me to determine; but I do not think he can, with the shadow of justice or propriety, impugn my sentiments, while his own recorded opinions are identical with my own. When the gentleman refers to the conditions of the grants under which the United States have acquired these lands, and insists that, as they are declared to be “for the common benefit of all the states,” they can only be treated as so much treasure, I think he has applied a rule of construction too narrow for the case. If in the deeds of cession it has been declared that the grants were intended for “the common benefit of all the states,” it is clear, from other provisions, that they were not intended merely as so much property; for it is expressly declared, that the object of the grants is the erection of new states; and the United States, in accepting this trust, bind themselves to facilitate the foundation of these states, to be admitted into the Union with all the rights and privileges of the original states. This, sir, was the great end to which all parties looked, and it is by the fulfilment of this high trust that “the common benefit of all the states” is to be best promoted. Sir, let me tell the gentleman, that in the part of the country in which I live, we do not measure political benefits by the money standard. We consider as more valuable than gold liberty, principle, and justice. But, sir, if we are bound to act on the narrow principles contended for by the gentleman, I am wholly at a loss to conceive how he can reconcile his principles with his own practice. The lands are, it seems, to be treated “as so much treasure,” and must be applied to the “common benefit of all the states.” Now, if this be so, whence does he derive the right to appropriate them for partial and local objects? How can the gentleman consent to vote away immense bodies of these lands, for canals in Indiana and Illinois, to the Louisville and Portland Canal, to Kenyon College in Ohio, to Schools for the Deaf and Dumb, and other objects of a similar description? If grants of this character can fairly be considered as made “for the common benefit of all the states,” it can only be, because all the states are interested in the welfare of each—a principle which, carried to the full extent, destroys all distinction between local and national objects, and is certainly broad enough to embrace the principles for which I have ventured to contend. Sir, the true difference between us I take to be this: the gentleman wishes to treat the public lands as a great treasure, just as so much money in the treasury, to be applied to all objects, constitutional and unconstitutional, to which the public money is constantly applied. I consider it as a sacred trust which we ought to fulfil, on the principles for which I have contended.


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/58

28 are difficult and are often impossible. It is then that they flock to the house of the Béate, who gives them the first elements of instruction. She also teaches the young girls how to use the bobbins. During the summer she has a crêche, and attends to the infants whilst their mothers are in the fields; she nurses the sick, lays out the dead, and exerts her influence, which is second only to that of the curé, to counsel those who are in perplexity, to console the sorrowful, and to reconcile those who have quarrelled. She is the peacemaker in every little agglomeration of cottages. As a return for her services she obtains her lodging gratis, corn and wood sufficient for her needs. Every well-to-do peasant also contributes fifty centimes per month for her maintenance. In her house in the winter evenings the women gather to work together, and each meeting is begun and concluded with prayer. How valuable are the services of these women may be judged by the fact that in Haute Loire there are 265 parishes, but made up of 3,300 widely-scattered hamlets.

The peasant of the uplands of Le Velay and Le Vivarais is of medium height, is strongly built, and of a vigorous constitution. Accustomed from childhood to follow his sheep and oxen in their leisurely movements, he also becomes a being of slow habit of body and even slower of mind. He is shy, timorous, and cautious of compromising himself in any way with his neighbours, above all with the officials.

A writer in 1829 says:–

"His broad-brimmed hat shades a face that when calm seems to be incapable of expression. Chestnut hair flows over his shoulders. His eye is calm and assured. In speech he is curt, to the point; but he is often figurative in his expressions.


text:
Page:Webster and Hayne's Celebrated Speeches.djvu/11

Rh The senator from Massachusetts has thought proper to present, in strong contrast, the friendly feelings of the east towards the west, with sentiments of an opposite character displayed by the south in relation to appropriations for internal improvements. Now, sir, let it be recollected that the south have made no professions; I have certainly made none in their behalf, of regard for the west. It has been reserved for the gentleman from Massachusetts, while he vaunts over his own personal devotion to western interests, to claim for the entire section of country to which he belongs an ardent friendship for the west, as manifested by their support of the system of internal improvement, while he casts in our teeth the reproach that the south has manifested hostility to western interests in opposing appropriations for such objects. That gentleman, at the same time, acknowledged that the south entertains constitutional scruples on this subject. Are we then, sir, to understand that the gentleman considers it a just subject of reproach that we respect our oaths, by which we are bound “to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the U. States?” Would the gentleman have us manifest our love to the west by trampling under foot our constitutional scruples? Does he not perceive, if the south is to be reproached with unkindness to the west, in voting against appropriations which the gentleman admits they could not vote for without doing violence to their constitutional opinions, that he exposes himself to the question, whether, if he was in our situation, he could vote for these appropriations, regardless of his scruples? No, sir, I will not do the gentleman so great injustice. He has fallen into this error from not having duly weighed the force and effect of the reproach which he was endeavoring to cast upon the south. In relation to the other point, the friendship manifested by New England towards the west, in their support of the system of internal improvement, the gentleman will pardon me for saying, that I think he is equally unfortunate in having introduced that topic. As that gentleman has forced it upon us, however, I cannot suffer it to pass unnoticed. When the gentleman tells us that the appropriations for internal improvement in the west would, in almost every instance, have failed but for New England votes, he has forgotten to tell us the when, the how, and the wherefore this new-born zeal for the west sprung up in the bosom of New England. If we look back only a few years, we will find in both houses of Congress a uniform and steady opposition on the part of the members from the Eastern States, generally, to all appropriations of this character. At the time I became a member of this house, and for some time afterwards, a decided majority of the New England senators were opposed to the very measures which the senator from Massachusetts tells us they now cordially support. Sir, the Journals are before me, and an examination of them will satisfy every gentleman of that fact.

It must be well known to every one whose experience dates back as far as 1825, that up to a certain period, New England was generally opposed to appropriations for internal improvements in the west. The gentleman from Massachusetts may be himself an exception, but if he went for the system before 1825, it is certain that his colleagues did not go with him.

In the session of 1824 and ’25, however, (a memorable era in the history of this country,) a wonderful change took place in New England, in relation to western interests. Sir, an extraordinary union of sympathies and of interests was then effected, which brought the east and the west into close alliance. The book from which I have before read contains the first


text:
Page:Webster and Hayne's Celebrated Speeches.djvu/12

8 public annunciation of that happy reconciliation of conflicting interests, personal and political, which brought the east and west together, and locked in a fraternal embrace the two great orators of the east and the west. Sir, it was on the 18th January, 1825, while the result of the presidential election, in the House of Representatives, was still doubtful, while the whole country was looking with intense anxiety to that legislative hall where the mighty drama was so soon to be acted, that we saw the leaders of two great parties in the house and in the nation, “taking sweet counsel together,” and in a celebrated debate on the Cumberland road, fighting side by side for western interests. It was on that memorable occasion that the senator from Massachusetts held out the white flag to the west, and uttered those liberal sentiments which he yesterday so indignantly repudiated. Then it was, that that happy union between the members of the celebrated coalition was consummated, whose immediate issue was a president from one quarter of the Union, with the succession (as it was supposed) secured to another. The “American system,” before a rude, disjointed, and misshapen mass, now assumed form and consistency. Then it was that it became “the settled policy of the government,” that this system should be so administered as to create a reciprocity of interests and a reciprocal distribution of government favors, east and west, (the tariff and internal improvements,) while the south—yes, sir, the impracticable south—was to be “out of your protection.” The gentleman may boast as much as he pleases of the friendship of New England for the west, as displayed in their support of internal improvement; but when he next introduces that topic, I trust that he will tell us when that friendship commenced, how it was brought about, and why it was established. Before I leave this topic, I must be permitted to say that the true character of the policy now pursued by the gentleman from Massachusetts and his friends, in relation to appropriations of land and money, for the benefit of the west, is in my estimation very similar to that pursued by Jacob of old towards his brother Esau: “it robs them of their birthright for a mess of pottage.”

The gentleman from Massachusetts, in alluding to a remark of mine, that before any disposition could be made of the public lands, the national debt (for which they stand pledged) must be first paid, took occasion to intimate “that the extraordinary fervor which seems to exist in a certain quarter, (meaning the south, sir,) for the payment of the debt, arises from a disposition to weaken the ties which bind the people to the Union.” While the gentleman deals us this blow, he professes an ardent desire to see the debt speedily extinguished. He must excuse me, however, for feeling some distrust on that subject until I find this disposition manifested by something stronger than professions. I shall look for acts, decided and unequivocal acts; for the performance of which an opportunity will very soon (if I am not greatly mistaken) be afforded. Sir, if I were at liberty to judge of the course which that gentleman would pursue, from the principles which he has laid down in relation to this matter, I should be bound to conclude that he will be found acting with those with whom it is a darling object to prevent the payment of the public debt. He tells us he is desirous of paying the debt, “because we are under an obligation to discharge it.” Now, sir, suppose it should happen that the public creditors, with whom we have contracted the obligation, should release us from it, so far as to declare their willingness to wait for payment for fifty years to come, provided only the interest shall be punctually


text:
Page:Webster and Hayne's Celebrated Speeches.djvu/13

Rh. The gentleman from Massachusetts will then be released from the obligation which now makes him desirous of paying the debt; and, let me tell the gentleman, the holders of the stock will not only release us from this obligation, but they will implore, nay, they will even pay us not to pay them. But, adds the gentleman, so far as the debt may have an effect in binding the debtors to the country, and thereby serving as a link to hold the states together, he would be glad that it should exist forever. Surely then, sir, on the gentleman’s own principles, he must be opposed to the payment of the debt.

Sir, let me tell that gentleman, that the south repudiates the idea that a pecuniary dependence on the federal government is one of the legitimate means of holding the states together. A moneyed interest in the government is essentially a base interest; and just so far as it operates to bind the feelings of those who are subjected to it to the government,—just so far as it operates in creating sympathies and interests that would not otherwise exist,—is it opposed to all the principles of free government, and at war with virtue and patriotism. Sir, the link which binds the public creditors, as such, to their country, binds them equally to all governments, whether arbitrary or free. In a free government, this principle of abject dependence, if extended through all the ramifications of society, must be fatal to liberty. Already have we made alarming strides in that direction. The entire class of manufacturers, the holders of stocks, with their hundreds of millions of capital, are held to the government by the strong link of pecuniary interests; millions of people—entire sections of country, interested, or believing themselves to be so, in the public lands, and the public treasure—are bound to the government by the expectation of pecuniary favors. If this system is carried much further, no man can fail to see that every generous motive of attachment to the country will be destroyed, and in its place will spring up those low, grovelling, base, and selfish feelings which bind men to the footstool of a despot by bonds as strong and enduring as those which attach them to free institutions. Sir, I would lay the foundation of this government in the affections of the people—I would teach them to cling to it by dispensing equal justice, and above all, by securing the “blessings of liberty” to “themselves and to their posterity.”

The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts has gone out of his way to pass a high eulogium on the state of. In the most impassioned tones of eloquence, he described her majestic march to greatness. He told us, that, having already left all the other states far behind, she was now passing by Virginia and Pennsylvania, and about to take her station by the side of New York. To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. When, however, the gentleman proceeded to contrast the state of Ohio with Kentucky, to the disadvantage of the latter, I listened to him with regret; and when he proceeded further to attribute the great, and, as he supposed, acknowledged superiority of the former in population, wealth, and general prosperity, to the policy of Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, which had secured to the people of Ohio (by the ordinance of ’87) a population of freemen, I will confess that my feelings suffered a revulsion which I am now unable to describe in any language sufficiently respectful towards the gentleman from Massachusetts. In contrasting the state of Ohio with Kentucky, for the purpose of pointing out the superiority of the former, and of attributing that superiority to the existence of slavery in the one state, and its absence in the other, I


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/42

 Italian and M. Watsons Latine “Amyntas” to make them both one English.’ Nash, in his preface to Greene's ‘Menaphon’ (1589), however, highly commended ‘the excellent translation of Master Thomas Watson's sugared “Amyntas”’ by ‘sweet Master France.’ In 1590 some Latin odes by Watson were prefixed to Vallans's ‘Tale of Two Swannes,’ with an English translation by Fraunce.

Watson was deeply interested in music, and was on terms of intimacy with the chief musicians of the day. In 1590 there appeared a book of music called ‘The first sett of Italian Madrigalls Englished, not to the sense of the original dittie, but after the affection of the Noate. By Thomas Watson, Gentleman. There are also heere inserted two excellent Madrigalls of Master William Byrd, composed after the Italian vaine, at the request of the sayd Thomas Watson,’ London, 1590 (Brit. Mus.; Huth Libr.; Britwell). The volume is divided into six parts, each with a separate title-page, headed respectively, ‘Superius,’ ‘Medius,’ ‘Tenor,’ ‘Contra-Tenor,’ ‘Bassus,’ and ‘Sextus.’ Before each part is placed a dedication in Latin elegiacs by Watson to the Earl of Essex, as well as a Latin eulogy in the same metre on the celebrated Italian composer Luca Marenzio, whose music was very largely represented in the book. The words of Watson's madrigals are somewhat halting; they have not been reprinted. Another proof of Watson's musical interests appears in a poem by him headed ‘A Gratification unto Mr. John Case for his learned Booke lately made in the prayes of Musick.’ According to Mr. W. C. Hazlitt these verses were first printed in broadside form in 1586 (in which year Dr. John Case's ‘Praise of Musicke’ was published) as ‘A Song in Commendation of the author of the Praise of Musicke. Set by W. Byrd.’ The earliest form in which they now seem accessible is in a manuscript volume transcribed by John Lilliat, formerly in Hearne's possession, now among Dr. Rawlinson's collection in the Bodleian manuscripts (Rawlinson, Poet. 148; reprinted in British Bibliographer, ii. 543, ed. 1812, and in ).

It was in 1590 that Watson's patron, Sir Francis Walsingham, died. He lamented his death in a Latin elegy in hexameters. This was dedicated to Sir Francis's cousin, Thomas Walsingham, under the title, ‘Melibœus Thomæ Watsoni sive, Ecloga in Obitum Honoratissimi Viri, Domini Francisci Walsinghami’ (London, 1590, 4to, Brit. Mus.) Mindful of the march that Fraunce had stolen on him in regard to his ‘Amyntas,’ Watson published an English translation of his new elegy under the title of ‘An Eglogue upon the Death of the Right Honorable Sir Francis Walsingham, late principall Secretarie to her Maiestie, and of her moste Honourable Privie Councell. Written first in latine by Thomas Watson, Gentleman, and now by himselfe translated in English. Musis mendicantibus insultat Amousia’ (London, 1590, 4to). ‘I interpret myself,’ Watson informed his readers, ‘lest Melibœus, in speaking English by another man's labour, should leese my name in his chaunge as my Amyntas did.’ The English version was dedicated to Walsingham's daughter Frances, widow of Sir Philip Sidney.

Watson seems in his last years to have been employed by William Cornwallis (son of Sir Thomas Cornwallis [q. v.], comptroller of Queen Mary's household, and uncle of Sir William Cornwallis (d. 1631?) [q. v.], author of the ‘Essayes’). Watson appears to have given tuition in literature to William Cornwallis's son, and to have been on affectionate terms with his pupil (cf. Gent. Mag. 1846, i. 491). He married the sister of another of William Cornwallis's retainers, Thomas Swift. At the close of Watson's life his brother-in-law and colleague Swift endeavoured to win the affections of their master's daughter. Watson encouraged the intrigue and induced his pupil to further it. After Watson's death the facts came to the knowledge of the lady's father, who, filled with indignation, laid them before Lord Burghley (15 March 1593). William Cornwallis charged Watson with having forged some of the encouraging letters that his son and daughter were represented to have written to Swift. Watson, Cornwallis declared, ‘could devise twenty fictions and knaveryes in a play wch was his daily practyse and his living’ (Mr. Hubert Hall in Athenæum, 23 Aug. 1880). No dramatic work by Watson survives, apart from his versions of Sophocles' ‘Antigone’ and of Tasso's pastoral drama, although Meres reckons him with Peele, Marlowe, and Shakespeare as among ‘the best for tragedie.’

The poet seems to be identical with the ‘Thomas Watson, gent, who was buried in the church of St. Bartholomew the less’ on 26 Sept. 1592 (, Bibliographical Catalogue, ii. 490).

Two volumes of Watson's verse appeared posthumously. On 10 Nov. 1592 William Ponsonby obtained a license for an original pastoral poem in Latin by Watson, entitled ‘Amintæ Gaudia. Authore Thoma Watsono, Londinensi, iuris Studioso. Londini, Impensis Gulihelmi Ponsonbei, 1592.’ It


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/61

Rh He makes no distinction in his address to any one to whatever rank he may belong, and however wealthy he may be. Communicative when on terms of familiarity with him, an expression of goodwill steals out on and overspreads his usually rugged and harsh features, like the flowers that open on the face of a rock. But should one inadvertently offend his pride, at once wrath, prompt and fierce, flames forth, an oath breaks from his lips, and in a moment the weapon, hidden but never quitted, is drawn and raised, and often blood flows to efface a quite trivial offence."

Descriptions of character of a people are never satisfactory. I shall give in a subsequent chapter the story of the Tavern of Peyrabeille, that shows what the character of this people is in a way unmistakable.

Robert Louis Stevenson's account of the people of Le Velay is peculiarly unpleasant. He speaks of their discourtesy, and accentuates their brutality of manner and speech. I venture, with all due deference, to differ from him. The peasant in Languedoc is much towards you as you are to him. If you meet him with courtesy and kindliness it is cordially reciprocated, and my experience is altogether the reverse of his. I do not think that R. L. Stevenson treated the French peasant quite as he expects to be treated. Here is one instance:—


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/43

 was dedicated to Mary, countess of Pembroke, Sir Philip Sidney's sister, by a writer signing himself ‘C. M.’ who deeply lamented Watson's recent death. The initials have been very doubtfully interpreted as Christopher Marlowe. The poem is in hexameters, and is divided into five ‘epistolæ.’

Finally there appeared a series of sixty sonnets in regular metre in English under the title of ‘The Tears of Fancie, or Love Disdained,’ London, for William Barley, 1593. John Danter obtained a license for the publication on 11 Aug. 1593. The only known copy is at Britwell, but it wants two leaves containing eight sonnets (Nos. 9–16).

Watson is represented in most of the poetical miscellanies of the end of the sixteenth century and early years of the seventeenth century. In the ‘Phœnix Nest’ (1593) there are three previously unpublished poems by ‘T. W., gent,’ of which the first is an English rendering of a passage from Watson's ‘Amyntas.’ In ‘England's Helicon’ (1600) are five poems, of which only one was new; this was superscribed ‘The nimphes meeting their May Queene, entertaine her with this dittie.’ In another poetical collection, Davison's ‘Poetical Rhapsodie,’ 1602, ten poems are quoted from the ‘Hekatompathia.’ Watson's name figures among the authors whose works are quoted in Bodenham's ‘Belvedére, or the Garden of the Muses’ (1600). ‘England's Parnassus’ (1606), gives twelve extracts from Watson, all from the ‘Ἑκατομπαθία’

Watson's verse lacks passion, but is the accomplished work of a cultivated and well-read scholar. As a Latinist he stands first among contemporaries. It is as a sonneteer that he left his chief mark on English literature. He was the first English writer of sonnets after Surrey and Wyatt. Most of his sonnets were published before those of Sir Philip Sidney, and the popularity attending Watson's sonneteering efforts was a chief cause of the extended vogue of the sonnet in England among poets and their patrons in the last decade of the sixteenth century. Watson's sonnets were closely studied by Shakespeare and other contemporaries, and, despite their frigidity and imitative quality, actively influenced the form and topic of the later sonnets of the century. All manner of praise was bestowed on Watson at his death by his fellow poets and men of letters, who reckoned him the compeer of Spenser and Sidney. Harvey in his ‘Four Letters’ (1592) highly commended his ‘studious endeavours in enriching and polishing his native tongue,’ ranking him with Spenser, Stanyhurst, Fraunce, Daniel, and Nash. In his ‘Pierce's Supererogation’ (1593) Gabriel Harvey mentions Watson as ‘a learned and gallant gentleman, a notable poet;’ Nash in his reply to Harvey in ‘Have with you to Saffron Walden’ (1596), says of Watson: ‘A man he was that I dearely lov'd and honor'd, and for all things hath left few his equalls in England.’ George Peele, in a prologue to his ‘Honour of the Garter’ (1593), refers

Spenser refers to him as a patron of the poets as well as a poet himself. In ‘Colin Clout's come home again’ (1595) Spenser, writing of Watson under the name of ‘Amyntas,’ deplores his recent death:

Amyntas, floure of shepheards pride forlorne, He whilest he liued was the noblest swaine, That euer piped in an oaten quill. Both did he other, which could pipe, maintaine And eke could pipe himselfe with passing skill.

William Clerke, in a work entitled ‘Polimanteia’ (1595), seems, when referring to Shakespeare's ‘Venus and Adonis,’ to dub Shakespeare ‘Watson's heire.’ Watson has been doubtfully identified, too, with ‘happie Menalcas,’ to whom Thomas Lodge addressed a laudatory poem in ‘A Fig for Momus’ (1595). Francis Meres, in ‘Palladis Tamia’ (1598), after honourable mention of Watson as a Latinist, treated him as the equal of Petrarch, and declared that his Latin pastorals ‘Amyntæ Gaudia’ and ‘Melibœus’ were worthy of comparison with the work of Theocritus, Virgil, Mantuanus, and Sannazarro. Professor Arber edited Watson's English poems (excluding the madrigals) in his series of English reprints in 1870. Another issue is dated 1895.

WATSON, THOMAS (d. 1686), ejected divine, was educated at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where he was remarkable for hard study. After residing for some time with the family of Mary, the widow of Sir, baron Tilbury [q. v.], he was appointed in 1646 to preach at St. Stephen's, Walbrook. During the civil war he showed himself strongly presbyterian in his views,


text:
Page:Webster and Hayne's Celebrated Speeches.djvu/14

10 thought I could discern the very spirit of the Missouri question, intruded into this debate, for objects best known to the gentleman himself. Did that gentleman, sir, when he formed the determination to cross the southern border, in order to invade the state of South Carolina, deem it prudent or necessary to enlist under his banners the prejudices of the world, which, like Swiss troops, may be engaged in any cause, and are prepared to serve under any leader? Did he desire to avail himself of those remorseless allies, the passions of mankind, of which it may be more truly said than of the savage tribes of the wilderness, “that their known rule of warfare is an indiscriminate slaughter of all ages, sexes, and conditions”? Or was it supposed, sir, that, in a premeditated and unprovoked attack upon the south, it was advisable to begin by a gentle admonition of our supposed weakness, in order to prevent us from making that firm and manly resistance due to our own character and our dearest interests? Was the significant hint of the weakness of slaveholding states, when contrasted with the superior strength of free states,—like the glare of the weapon half drawn from its scabbard,—intended to enforce the lessons of prudence and of patriotism, which the gentleman had resolved, out of his abundant generosity, gratuitously to bestow upon us? Mr. President, the impression which has gone abroad of the weakness of the south, as connected with the slave question, exposes us to such constant attacks, has done us so much injury, and is calculated to produce such infinite mischiefs, that I embrace the occasion presented by the remarks of the gentleman of Massachusetts, to declare that we are ready to meet the question promptly and fearlessly. It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us.

We are ready to make up the issue with the gentleman, as to the influence of slavery on individual or national character—on the prosperity and greatness, either of the United States or of particular states. Sir, when arraigned before the bar of public opinion, on this charge of slavery, we can stand up with conscious rectitude, plead not guilty, and put ourselves upon God and our country. Sir, we will not consent to look at slavery in the abstract. We will not stop to inquire whether the black man, as some philosophers have contended, is of an inferior race, nor whether his color and condition are the effects of a curse inflicted for the offences of his ancestors. We deal in no abstractions. We will not look back to inquire whether our fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this country. If an inquiry should ever be instituted in these matters, however, it will be found that the profits of the slave trade were not confined to the south. Southern ships and southern sailors were not the instruments of bringing slaves to the shores of America, nor did our merchants reap the profits of that “accursed traffic.” But, sir, we will pass over all this. If slavery, as it now exists in this country, be an evil, we of the present day found it ready made to our hands. Finding our lot cast among a people whom God had manifestly committed to our care, we did not sit down to speculate on abstract questions of theoretical liberty. We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty. We resolved to make the best of the situation in which Providence had placed us, and to fulfil the high trusts which had devolved upon us as the owners of slaves, in the only way in which such a trust could be fulfilled, without spreading misery and ruin throughout the land. We found that we had to deal with a people whose physical, moral, and intellectual habits and


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/44

 while discovering attachment to the king. He joined the presbyterian ministers in a remonstrance to Cromwell and the council of war against the death of Charles. In 1651 he was imprisoned, with some other ministers, for his share in Love's plot to recall Charles II [see ]. After some months' imprisonment Watson and his companions were released on petitioning for mercy, and on 30 June 1652 he was formally reinstated vicar of St. Stephen's, Walbrook. He obtained great fame and popularity as preacher until the Restoration, when he was ejected for nonconformity. Notwithstanding the rigour of the acts against dissenters, Watson continued to exercise his ministry privately as he found opportunity. In 1666, after the fire of London, like several other nonconformists, he fitted up a large room for public worship for any who wished to attend. Upon the declaration of indulgence in 1672 he obtained a license for the great hall in Crosby House, then belonging to Sir John Langham, a patron of evangelical nonconformity. After preaching there for several years his health gave way, and he retired to Barnston in Essex, where he was buried on 28 July 1686 in the grave of [q. v.], formerly rector there. A portrait, engraved by James Hopwood, is in Calamy's ‘Nonconformist's Memorial,’ ed. Palmer; another, engraved by John Sturt, is prefixed to his ‘Body of Divinity,’ 1692; and a third, engraved by Frederick Henry van Hove, is prefixed to his ‘Art of Contentment,’ 1662.

Watson was a man of considerable learning, and his works preserved his fame long after his death. According to Doddridge, his ‘Christian Soldier, or Heaven taken by Storm,’ was the means of converting Colonel (1688–1745) [q. v.] His most famous work, the ‘Body of Practical Divinity,’ appeared after his death, in 1692 (London, fol.) It consists of 176 sermons on the catechism of the Westminster assembly of divines. Numerous subsequent editions have been printed, the last being issued in 1838 (London, 8vo) and in 1855 (New York, 8vo). His other writings were numerous. Among the most important are: A collection of his ‘Sermons and select Discourses’ appeared in two volumes, Glasgow, 1798–9, 8vo; Glasgow, 1807, 8vo. In 1850 appeared ‘Puritan Gems, or Wise and Holy Sayings of Thomas Watson,’ edited by John Adey, London, 16mo. Two manuscript sermons by him are preserved in the British Museum (Harl. MS. 7517).
 * 1) ‘The Christians Charter; shewing the Priviledges of a Believer both in this Life and that which is to Come,’ London, 1652, 8vo; 6th edit. London, 1665, 8vo.
 * 2) ‘Autaskeia, or the Art of Divine Contentment,’ London, 1653, 8vo; 15th edit. London, 1793, 12mo; new ed. Diss, 1838, 16mo.
 * 3) ‘The Saints Delight. To which is annexed a Treatise of Meditation,’ London, 1657, 8vo; new edition by the Religious Tract Society, London, 1830, 12mo.
 * 4) ‘The Beatitudes: or a Discourse upon part of Christ's famous Sermon on the Mount’ (with other discourses), London, 1660, 4to.
 * 5) ‘Jerusalems Glory; or the Saints Safeties in Eying the Churches Security,’ London, 1661, 8vo.
 * 6) ‘Paramythion, or a Word of Comfort for the Church of God,’ London, 1662, 8vo.
 * 7) ‘A Divine Cordial: or the Transcendent Priviledge of those that love God,’ London, 1663, 8vo; new edit. London, 1831, 12mo.
 * 8) ‘The Godly Mans Picture, drawn with a Scripture Pensil,’ London, 1666, 8vo.
 * 9) ‘The Holy Eucharist,’ 2nd impression, London, 1668, 8vo.
 * 10) ‘Heaven taken by Storm: or the Holy Violence a Christian is to put forth in the pursuit after Glory,’ London, 1669, 8vo; 2nd edit., entitled ‘The Christian Soldier, or Heaven taken by Storm;’ new edit. London, 1835, 8vo; first American edit. New York, 1810, 12mo; Nos. 1 and 2 were published, together with ‘A Discourse of Meditation,’ under the title of ‘Three Treatises,’ 6th edit. London, 1660, 4to.

WATSON, THOMAS (1637–1717), deprived bishop of St. David's, the son of John Watson, a ‘seaman,’ was born at North Ferriby, near Hull, on 1 March 1636–7. He was educated at the grammar school at Hull and was admitted to St. John's College, Cambridge, on 25 May 1655, whence he graduated M.A. in 1662, B.D. in 1669, and D.D. in 1675. He was admitted a fellow of his college on 10 April 1660. He was also presented to the rectory of Burrough Green in Cambridgeshire, and in 1678 exerted himself in the parliamentary elections for the county in favour of the court candidate; in the following year he was made a justice of the peace. On 26 June 1687 he was consecrated at Lambeth bishop of St. David's, succeeding (1638–1687) [q. v.]

Watson was a strong supporter of James II's policy, and, according to Wood, owed his


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/45

 his advancement to the recommendation of, baron Dover [q. v.], though his enemies asserted that he obtained it by purchase. After his consecration Watson did not abate his zeal, and strenuously promoted the reading of the Declaration of Indulgence in his diocese in 1688. At the revolution he was excepted from the act of indemnity, was attacked at Burrough Green by the rabble of the neighbourhood, was brought a prisoner to Cambridge, and was rescued by the scholars of the university. The strength of his opinions was not, however, to be moderated by fear of violence. He sympathised ardently with the nonjurors; and it was alleged, perhaps without truth, that he ordained many persons without tendering them the oaths. In 1692 he voted consistently against the government in the House of Lords, and in 1696, after the detection of the assassination plot, he refused to join the association to defend William and Mary from such attempts, because membership involved a declaration that William was ‘rightful and lawful’ king. In 1694 he announced his intention of insisting on the residence of his chancellor, residentiary canons, and beneficed clergy who had been lax in fulfilling the duties of their positions. This measure, though justly conceived, was somewhat abruptly announced, and Watson was probably influenced by the knowledge that whig opinions were prevalent among his clergy. It was also believed that he intended removing from his office his registrar, Robert Lucy, the son of [q. v.], a former bishop of the see. In alarm Lucy and others of the clergy procured an inhibition from the archbishop, [q. v.], and Watson was suspended from his office on 21 Aug. 1694 while a commission inquired into the state of his see (, Brief Relation, 1857, iii. 347, 360). After the termination of the commission's researches, however, Watson undauntedly continued his endeavour to get rid of Lucy, and in self-defence Lucy brought charges of simony and maladministration against him. In October 1695, in answer to a citation, Watson appeared before [q. v.] and six coadjutor-bishops and pleaded his privilege of peerage (ib. iii. 541, 542). This course arrested proceedings until 20 March 1695–6, when he agreed to waive his privilege (ib. iv. 79, 383). In a further suit by Lucy for the recovery of some of his fees, the lords decided on 23 May 1698 that Watson had no privilege. On his trial in the ecclesiastical court it was proved that Watson had let out to another clergyman, William Brooks, his rectory of Burrough Green, which he had retained in commendam, and that he had appointed his nephew, John Medley, to the archdeaconry of St. David's, reserving most of the emoluments for himself. In defence it was shown that Brooks had Burrough Green on very favourable terms, and that Medley was indebted to his uncle for sums of money advanced upon bond to pay for his education and for the support of his mother and sisters. Watson was, however, found guilty of simony, and deprived. The original deed of deprivation is in the Lambeth Library. One of the coadjutors, [q. v.], refused to concur in the sentence because he regarded the proceedings as ultra vires. He was willing that Watson should be suspended, but did not think the archbishop competent to deprive him. Sprat's position is set forth by an anonymous writer in ‘A Letter to a Person of Quality concerning the Archbishop of Canterbury's Sentence of Deprivation against the Bishop of St. David's’ (London, 1699, 4to), and in Burnet's ‘Letter to a Member of the House of Commons,’ published without date; both are in the British Museum Library.

Watson refused to admit the validity of the sentence, which was confirmed by the court of delegates on 23 Feb. 1699–1700, and continued to take his seat in the House of Lords (ib. iii. 584, 621). He at first attempted to resume his privilege of peerage; but, the lords declaring on 6 Dec. 1699 that he could not do so after voluntarily waiving it, he adopted Sprat's contention that the archbishop was incompetent to deprive a bishop. This point, however, was decided against him by the lords on 2 March 1699–1700, although on 8 March they requested the crown not to fill the see of St. David's immediately. On 4 May 1701 Watson was excommunicated for contumacy, and on 30 June 1702 was arrested on a writ for 1,000l., his costs in the suit (ib. v. 49, 189). In November 1703 the court of exchequer gave judgment that he was justly deprived of the temporalities of the see, and on 23 Jan. 1704–5 the lords finally declared the see vacant by rejecting a petition of Watson in connection with the proceedings in the court of exchequer (ib. v. 308, 362, 501, 509, 511). He was succeeded in the see of St. David's in March 1704–5 by [q. v.] He retired to his seat at Wilbraham, near Cambridge, where he died on 3 June 1717. He was buried in the chancel of the parish church under the south wall, but without any service, as he was still excommunicated. He was married, his wife's christian name being Johanna. He was an intimate friend of


text:
Page:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu/62

30 But I will quote again, and this time from Georges Sand:–

The elder women alone preserve a distinctive costume, and that is confined to the head-dress. Its main feature consists in a white frilled cap with a highly coloured broad ribbon forming a bow in front; the ends are carried back over the ears, and a little peculiarly shaped black felt hat, fit only for a child, is perched on the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/46

 (1656–1740) [q. v.], whom he wished to make his chaplain (, Lit. Anecd. v. 107). During his lifetime he bestowed many benefactions on St. John's College, including the advowson of the three livings of Fulbourn St. Vigors, and Brinkley in Cambridgeshire, and Brandesburton, near Beverley in Yorkshire. He also founded a hospital at Hull, which was further endowed by his brother, William Watson.

Many points in Watson's conduct during his tenure of the see of St. David's were undoubtedly discreditable, and his general character was painted in the blackest colours by his enemies. It is said that when his nephew, Medley, blundered while conducting the service in the cathedral, Watson scandalised the congregation with ‘two loud God dammes.’ Much of the evidence on which the charge of simony was based was of a questionable character, and the court, in which Burnet was a coadjutor, displayed too much party feeling to allow confidence in the impartiality of its findings. The different treatment meted out to the Jacobite Watson and the whig (1641–1703) [q. v.], bishop of Llandaff, was very remarkable. Jones was clearly convicted of entering into simoniacal contracts, more heinous than any of those charged against Watson, but his only punishment was suspension for less than a year. Burnet casuistically defended the inconsistency by saying that, while Watson was convicted of simony, Jones was only found guilty of simoniacal practices; for Watson took bribes himself, while Jones received them through his wife. Shippen remarked that Archbishop Tenison

(Faction Display'd, 1704, p. 5).

WATSON, THOMAS (d. 1744), captain in the navy, may very possibly, as Charnock supposes, have served as a midshipman with (1684–1757) [q. v.], perhaps in the Grafton. The only mention of him now to be found is as first lieutenant of the Antelope in 1733, till his promotion on 7 Oct. 1737 to be captain of the Antelope. On 10 July 1739 he was appointed to the Burford as Vernon's flag-captain, and acted in that capacity at the reduction of Porto Bello. In January 1740–1 he moved with Vernon to the Princess Caroline, was flag-captain during the abortive attack on Cartagena, and in June 1741 moved again with Vernon to the Boyne, in which he returned to England in December 1742. In September 1743 he was appointed to the 70-gun ship Northumberland, which in the following spring was one of the fleet sent out to Lisbon under the command of Sir (the elder) [q. v.] On the homeward voyage at daybreak on 8 May the Northumberland, looking out ahead, was ordered by signal to chase a strange sail seen to the northward. She did not come up with it, and did not obey her recall, which was made about two o'clock. The weather got thick and squally; she lost sight of the fleet; then of the chase; but about four o'clock sighted three ships to the leeward, that is in the east quarter, the wind being westerly. Towards these strangers the Northumberland ran down. They lay-to to wait for her; it was seen that they were French and that two of them were ships of 64 guns; the third was a 26-gun frigate. One of the 64-gun ships, the Content, was about a mile to windward of her consort, the Mars; and if Watson had engaged her, he might possibly have disabled her before the Mars could come to her support. It was clearly the only sane thing to do, if he refused to accept the advice offered by the master and endeavour to lead the Frenchmen back to Hardy's fleet.

But Watson was in no humour to follow advice or plan which savoured of caution. While with Vernon he must have been a capable officer; but since then, it is said, his skull had been fractured in a fall, ‘and a small matter of liquor rendered him quite out of order—which was his unhappy fate that day’ (A True and Authentick


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Eckford, Henry

ECKFORD, Henry, American naval architect: b. Irvine, Scotland, 12 March 1775; d. Constantinople, 12 Nov. 1832. He became a ship-builder in New York, in 1796; designed and constructed a fleet of war vessels for the United States government in 1812-14; built the Robert Fulton, which made the first voyage by steam from New York to New Orleans and Havana; became naval constructor at the Brooklyn navy yard in 1820; and built several war vessels for European and South American

governments. At the invitation of the sultan he became chief constructor in the Turkish navy, and established a navy yard at Constantinople.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/47

  of the Action between the Northumberland and three French Men of War … By an Eye-Witness). ‘We bore down on them,’ says the eye-witness, ‘so precipitately that our small sails were not stowed nor top-gallant sails furled before the enemy began to fire on us, and at the same time had the cabins to clear away; the hammocks were not stowed as they should be; in short, we had nothing in order as we should before action.’ About five o'clock the Northumberland closed with the Content and received her fire, but, without replying to it, ran down to the Mars. The Content followed, so did the frigate. The Northumberland was a target for the three of them. The men at the wheel were killed, and nobody thought of sending others to take their place. The captain was mad-drunk, the master a shivering coward, and the lieutenants unable or unwilling to take the command. The captain was mortally wounded; and before the first lieutenant could get on deck, the master struck the colours, and the ship was taken possession of. Watson died in France on 4 June 1744. The master, tried by court-martial on 1 Feb. 1745, was sentenced to be imprisoned in the Marshalsea for life; he was spared the capital punishment on the ground that he had given good advice to his captain before the action.

WATSON, THOMAS (1743–1781), engraver, was born in London in 1743, and articled to an engraver on plate. He executed some good stipple prints, which include portraits of Mrs. Sheridan as St. Cecilia, and Elizabeth Beauclerk as Una, both after Reynolds, and portraits of Mrs. Crewe and Mrs. Wilbraham, after Daniel Gardner; but he specially excelled in mezzotint, working from pictures by Reynolds, Dance, West, Gardner, Willison, Rembrandt, Correggio, and others. His portraits, after Reynolds, of Lady Bampfylde, Lady Melbourne, Mrs. Crewe as St. Geneviève, Lady Townshend and her sisters, and the ‘Strawberry Girl,’ are brilliant examples of the art, and proofs of them are now greatly prized. He also executed a set of six fine plates of Lely's ‘Windsor Beauties,’ now at Hampton Court. Watson for a time carried on business as a printseller in New Bond Street, and in 1778 entered into partnership with (1746–1823) [q. v.] He died and was buried at Bristol in 1781.

WATSON, THOMAS (1792–1882), first baronet, physician, eldest son of Joseph Watson of Thorpe-le-Soken, Essex, and his wife Mary, daughter of Thomas Catton, was born at Montrath, near Cullompton in Devonshire, on 7 March 1792. He was educated at the grammar school of Bury St. Edmunds, where [q. v.], afterwards bishop of London, was his contemporary; they continued friends throughout life. Watson entered St. John's College, Cambridge, in 1811, and graduated B.A. as tenth wrangler in 1815. He was elected a fellow in 1816, and in 1818 graduated M.A. He studied medicine at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, where he attended the lectures of [q. v.], in 1819. After spending one session at Edinburgh, he again resided at Cambridge, obtained the university license in medicine in 1822, was junior proctor in 1823–4, and graduated M.D. in 1825 (Graduati Cantabr. p. 549). In the same year, on 15 Sept., he married Sarah, daughter of Edward Jones of Brackley, Northamptonshire, and took a house in London. He was elected a fellow of the College of Physicians in 1826, and in May 1827 physician to the Middlesex Hospital, which was then connected with University College. He was professor of clinical medicine, and lectured from 1828 to 1831. In 1831 he became lecturer on forensic medicine at King's College, London, and in 1835 professor of medicine, an office which he held till 1840. He continued to be physician to the Middlesex Hospital till 1843. In that year he published his famous ‘Lectures on the Principles and Practice of Physic,’ which had first been printed in the ‘Medical Times and Gazette.’ The author corrected five editions, and it continued for thirty years the chief English text-book of medicine. It contains no discoveries, but is based upon sound clinical observations, gives a complete view of English medicine of its period, and is remarkable for its good literary style. At the College of Physicians he gave the Gulstonian lectures in 1827, the Lumleian lectures on hæmorrhage in 1831, and was a censor in 1828, 1837, and 1838. In 1862 he was elected president, and was re-elected for five successive years. He was elected F.R.S. in 1859, and in 1864 was made an honorary LL.D. at Cambridge. In 1857 he became president of the Pathological Society, and in 1868 of the Clinical Society. His practice as a physician was large, and in 1859 he was appointed


text:
Webster-Hayne debate

 * Hayne's First Speech (January 19, 1830)
 * Webster's First Reply to Hayne (January 20, 1830)
 * Hayne's Second Speech (January 21, 1830)
 * Webster's Second Reply to Hayne (January 26–27, 1830)

title: Webster-Hayne debate


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/117

 difficult. He therefore disregarded the signal, and amused himself and the few officers about him by putting his glass to his blind eye and saying that he could not see it. The frigates opposite the Trekroner did retreat, Captain Riou being slain as they drew off.

At about 2.30 the fire from the Danish hulks had been much beaten down, but as their crews fell, fresh men were sent from the shore and the fire was resumed. Nelson astutely and legitimately seized the opportunity to open negotiations with the Danes. He sent a flag of truce carried by Sir F. Thesiger ashore to the crown prince of Denmark (then regent of the kingdom), to say that unless he was allowed to take possession of the hulks which had surrendered he would be compelled to burn them, a course which he deprecated on the ground of humanity and his tenderness of “the brothers of the English the Danes.” The crown prince, who was shaken by the spectacle of the battle, allowed himself to be drawn into a reply, and to be referred to Sir Hyde Parker. Fire was suspended by the Danes to allow of time to receive Sir Hyde Parker’s answer. Nelson with intelligent promptitude availed himself of the interval to withdraw his squadron past the Trekroner. The difficulty found in getting the ships out—one of them grounded—showed how disastrous an attempt to draw off under fire of the forts must have been.

The Danish government, which had entered the coalition largely from fear of Russia, was not prepared to make very great sacrifices, and now entered into negotiations for an armistice. It was the more ready to do so because it received news of the assassination of the tsar Paul, which had happened on the 24th of March. An armistice was made for fourteen weeks, which left the British fleet free to proceed up the Baltic. On the 12th of April, after lightening the three-deckers of their guns, the fleet passed over the shallows. But its presence had now lost all military significance. Sir Hyde Parker was assured by the Russian minister at Copenhagen that the new tsar Alexander I. would not continue the policy of hostility with England and alliance with France which had proved fatal to his father. The Swedes, who like the Danes had entered the coalition under pressure from Russia, did not send their ships to sea. The government of the new tsar was prepared for an arrangement with England. The date of the final settlement was in all probability delayed by the activity of Nelson, and his belief that a British fleet was the best negotiator in Europe. The British government learnt of the tsar’s death on the 15th of April. On the 17th it instructed Sir Hyde Parker to agree to a suspension of hostilities, and not to take active measures against Russia so long as the Reval squadron did not put to sea. On the 21st of April, having now received a full account of the battle at Copenhagen, it recalled Sir Hyde Parker, whose vacillating conduct and want of enterprise had become manifest. He received the news of his recall on the 5th of May. Nelson, to whom the command passed, at once put to sea, and hastened with a part of his fleet to Reval, which he reached on the 12th of May. The Russian squadron had, however, cut a passage through the ice in the harbour on the 3rd, and had sailed for Kronstadt. Nelson was received with formal civility by the Russian officers, with whom he exchanged visits. He wrote a letter to Mr Garlike, secretary of the British embassy at St Petersburg, saying that he had come with a small squadron as the best way of paying “the very highest compliment” to the tsar.

The Russian government, which not unnaturally wished to avoid any appearance of acting under dictation, and was now in no anxiety for the Reval squadron, treated his presence as a menace. On the 13th of May Count Pahlen answered in a most peremptory letter informing Nelson that negotiations would be suspended while he remained at Reval. This retort caused Nelson annoyance which he did not attempt to conceal, but he justly concluded that he had nothing further to do at Reval, and therefore returned down the Baltic. Nelson remained with the fleet till he was relieved at his own request, and was able to sail for England on the 18th of June. He gave a proof of his regard for the service of the country by taking his passage home in a small brig rather than withdraw a line of battle ship from the squadron, which his rank entitled him to do, and as other admirals of the time generally did. The British sailors and ships embargoed in Russia were released on the 17th of May. Great Britain released her prisoners on the 4th of June, and on the 17th of June was signed the convention which terminated the Baltic campaign.

See Dispatches and Letters of Vice-Admiral Nelson, by Sir N. Harris Nicolas (1845); Life of Nelson, by Capt. A. T. Mahan (London, 1899).

 COPERNICUS (or ), NICOLAUS (1473–1543), Polish astronomer, was born on the 19th of February 1473, at Thorn in Prussian Poland, where his father, a native of Cracow, had settled as a wholesale trader. His mother, Barbara Watzelrode, belonged to a family of high mercantile and civic standing. After the death of his father in 1483, Nicolaus was virtually adopted by his uncle Lucas Watzelrode, later (in 1489) bishop of Ermeland. Placed at the university of Cracow in 1491, he devoted himself, during three years, to mathematical science under Albert Brudzewski (1445–1497), and incidentally acquired some skill in painting. At the age of twenty-three he repaired to Bologna, and there varied his studies of canon law by attending the astronomical lectures of Domenico Maria Novara (1454–1504). At Rome, in the Jubilee year 1500, he himself lectured with applause; but having been nominated in 1497 canon of the cathedral of Frauenburg, he recrossed the Alps in 1501 with the purpose of obtaining further leave of absence for the completion of his academic career. Late in the same year, accordingly, he entered the medical school of Padua, where he remained until 1505, having taken meanwhile a doctor’s degree in canon law at Ferrara on the 31st of May 1503. After his return to his native country he resided at the episcopal palace of Heilsberg as his uncle’s physician until the latter’s death on the 29th of March 1512. He then retired to Frauenburg, and vigorously attended to his capitular duties. He never took orders, but acted continually as the representative of the chapter under harassing conditions, administrative and political; he was besides commissary of the diocese of Ermeland; his medical skill, always at the service of the poor, was frequently in demand by the rich; and he laid a scheme for the reform of the currency before the Diet of Graudenz in 1522. Yet he found time, amid these multifarious occupations, to elaborate an entirely new system of astronomy, by the adoption of which man’s outlook on the universe was fundamentally changed.

The main lines of his great work were laid down at Heilsberg; at Frauenburg, from 1513, he sought, with scanty instrumental means, to test by observation the truth of the views it embodied (see : History). His dissatisfaction with Ptolemaic doctrines was of early date; and he returned from Italy, where so-called Pythagorean opinions were then freely discussed, in strong and irrevocable possession of the heliocentric theory. The epoch-making treatise in which it was set forth, virtually finished in 1530, began to be known through the circulation in manuscript of a Commentariolus, or brief popular account of its purport written by Copernicus in that year. Johann Albrecht Widmanstadt lectured upon it in Rome; Clement VII. approved, and Cardinal Schönberg transmitted to the author a formal demand for full publication. But his assent to this was only extracted from him in 1540 by the importunities of his friends, especially of his enthusiastic disciple George Joachim Rheticus (1514–1576), who printed, in the Narratio prima (Danzig, 1540), a preliminary account of the Copernican theory, and simultaneously sent to the press at Nuremberg his master’s complete exposition of it in the treatise entitled De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543). But the first printed copy reached Frauenburg barely in time to be laid on the writer’s death-bed. Copernicus was seized with apoplexy and paralysis towards the close of 1542, and died on the 24th of May 1543, happily unconscious that the fine Epistle, in which he had dedicated his life’s work to Paul III., was marred of its effect by an anonymous preface, slipt in by Andreas Osiander (1498–1552), with a view to disarming prejudice by insisting upon the purely hypothetical

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/117


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/48

 physician extraordinary to the queen, and in 1870 physician in ordinary. He was one of the physicians who attended the prince consort in his last illness. He was created a baronet on 27 June 1866. He retired from practice soon after 1870. He last attended the comitia of the College of Physicians in March 1882, on which occasion all the fellows present rose when he entered the room, a rare mark of respect, and the highest honour which the college can bestow on one of its fellows who has ceased to hold office.

Watson died on 11 Dec. 1882. His portrait, by George Richmond, hangs in the censors' room at the College of Physicians. He left a son, Sir Arthur Townley Watson, Q.C., and one daughter.

 WATSON, WALTER (1780–1854), Scottish poet, was born of lowly parentage at Chryston, parish of Calder, Lanarkshire, on 29 March 1780. At the age of eight he became a herd, and after a spell at weaving he tried farm service for a time at home, and employment as a sawyer in Glasgow, after which he enlisted in the Scots greys in 1799. Discharged at the peace of Amiens, 1802, he presently married and settled as a weaver in Chryston. He changed to Kilsyth, Stirlingshire, in 1820, after which he made various experiments till 1849 in the adjoining counties of Stirling, Lanark, and Dumbarton—now working as a sawyer and again as a weaver—finally settling at Duntiblae, near Kirkintilloch, Dumbartonshire, where he died on 12 Sept. 1854. He was buried in Calder churchyard, and a granite monument was erected at his grave in 1875. He was survived by a widow and four members of a family of ten. Several of Watson's lyrics—especially such merry, festive songs as ‘Sit down, my Cronie,’ and ‘A wee drappie o't’—though not of specially fine quality, have a winning shrewdness and vivacity that have secured them a certain popularity. Watson published three small volumes of his verse in 1808, 1823, and 1843 respectively, and a volume of his ‘Select Poems’ was edited by Hugh Macdonald in 1853.

 WATSON, WILLIAM (1559?–1603), secular priest and conspirator, born on 23 April, apparently in 1559, was, like his contemporaries, [q. v.] and [q. v.], a native of the diocese of Durham. His name does not occur in the ‘Visitations of Durham’ (ed. Foster, 1887), but his father must have been a man of some position if William's statement is to be trusted, that he was ‘sent to Oxforde at 10 yeares of age with my tutor (a perfect linguist, which my father kept to teach).’ He must be distinguished from the ‘William Watson of Durham, pleb.,’ who matriculated, aged 26, from All Souls' on 28 Nov. 1581, and graduated B.A. in the following February, for the future conspirator ‘at 14 came to the inns of court,’ and at sixteen ‘passed the sea to Rheims’ (Watson to the Attorney-general, printed in, Archpriest Controversy, i. 211 sqq.). Watson's family was evidently Roman catholic, and his name does not appear on the registers at Oxford or at the inns of court. According to Parsons, who is even less veracious than Watson himself, Watson came to Rheims ‘a poor, little begging boy,’ and obtained employment in menial offices at the English College, where he made sport for the students ‘in tumbling, for which his body was fitly made, and so he passed by the name of Wil. Wat., or Wat. Tumbler’ (, Manifestation, 1602, ff. 83–4). Watson's own account was that ‘my studies until I was 18 yeares of age were in the 7 liberall sciences intermixte, with the tongues, phisicke, common lawe (and especially histories all my life time for recreacon); from 18 to 21 I studied the lawes canon and civil with positive divinitie, and perfecting of my metaphisicke and philosophie; after that, untill my return home, I plyed schoole divinitie.’ His library, when he was arrested, contained, besides theological works, ‘lawe bookes, Machiavels works, tragedies, cronycles, collecions of Doleman, Philopater, Leycesters Commonwealth.’

Watson was confirmed at Rheims on 25 March 1581, received minor orders on 23 Sept. 1583, was ordained subdeacon on 21 Sept. 1585, deacon at Laon on 22 March 1585–6, priest on 5 April, and on 16 June following was sent as missioner to England (Douai Diaries, pp. 13, 178, 198, 209, 211). He was captured almost immediately and imprisoned in the Marshalsea; he was soon released on condition of leaving England within a specified time, during which he was not to be molested. [q. v.], however, who had been commissioned to hunt out priests, seized Watson, shut him up in Bridewell, and severely tortured him (cf. State Papers, Dom. Eliz. ccii. 61). In 1588 Watson escaped to the continent (on 30 Aug. in that year two


text: The Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster/The Reply to Hayne


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Eckhart, Johannes

ECKHART, ek'härt, Johannes (“”), the first of the German mystics in order of time and among the foremost in rank; the probable place of his birth is Cologne, and the year 1260 or a little earlier; d. 1329. He studied philosophy and theology in the University of Paris and joined the order of the Preaching Friars, or Dominicans, in which he was promoted to offices of high responsibility, for example, that of vicar-general of the Dominicans for Bohemia, provincial of the order in Saxony. In these places he effected many reforms in the houses of the order and was in high estimation as a preacher notwithstanding the abstruseness of his mystical speculations. Toward the end of his life this dissemination of his mystical views touching the nature of God and the relations between Deity and the human soul brought him under suspicion of being in sympathy with the Beghards, the Brethren of the Free Spirit, the Apostolic Brethren and other fanatics, and 1327 he was cited before the Court of Inquisition at Cologne to make answer to charges of heretical teaching based on passages in his sermons. There be defended the inculpated propositions as entirely orthodox, but expressed his readiness to repudiate them if in the judgment of the head of the Church they were in conflict with the Church's creeds. In 1329 the decision arrived from Rome: 28 propositions contained in his sermons were condemned as heretical and Eckhart was ordered to recant; but he was now dead.

Whether these 28 propositions were or were not formally heretical, contradictory of the express teachmgs of the Church, they certainly contain doctrines that never have been put forth in any of the Church's formularies. However extravagant, they might have been tolerated or ignored had they been entertained or discussed merely in the schools of theology and philosophy; but proclaimed from the pulpit and addressed to the common people, some of them ignorant, they were incitations to rebellion against all Church authority in teaching. His doctrine concerning the Godhead is plainly pantheistic. For him there is no real being but God. God is the unknown and the unknowable. We cannot validly affirm anything of the Godhead; to predicate anything of Deity is to limit infinity. Yet though God is unknown and unknowable, and though we cannot predicate anything of him, still we can know the true God, the personal God, the Father; in this personal God, the Godhead itself. The triune God, Father, Son and Spirit, is evolved from the Godhead. And the Father comes to know himself in the Son; the return of the Son into the Father is the Spirit. In begetting the Son — who is coeternal with the Father — the Father brings into existence the universal world of things. His death occurred a little while before the arrival of the Pope's condemnation of his doctrines.


text:
Page:Webster and Hayne's Celebrated Speeches.djvu/15

Rh character totally disqualified them from the enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. We could not send them back to the shores from whence their fathers had been taken; their numbers forbade the thought, even if we did not know that their condition here is infinitely preferable to what it possibly could be among the barren sands and savage tribes of Africa; and it was wholly irreconcilable with all our notions of humanity to tear asunder the tender ties which they had formed among us, to gratify the feelings of a false philanthropy. What a commentary on the wisdom, justice, and humanity of the southern slave owner is presented by the example of certain benevolent associations and charitable individuals elsewhere! Shedding weak tears over sufferings which had existence in their own sickly imaginations, these “friends of humanity” set themselves systematically to work to seduce the slaves of the south from their masters. By means of missionaries and political tracts, the scheme was in a great measure successful. Thousands of these deluded victims of fanaticism were seduced into the enjoyment of freedom in our northern cities. And what has been the consequence? Go to these cities now and ask the question. Visit the dark and narrow lanes, and obscure recesses, which have been assigned by common consent as the abodes of those outcasts of the world, the free people of color. Sir, there does not exist, on the face of the whole earth, a population so poor, so wretched, so vile, so loathsome, so utterly destitute of all the comforts, conveniences, and decencies of life, as the unfortunate blacks of Philadelphia, and New York, and Boston. Liberty has been to them the greatest of calamities, the heaviest of curses. Sir, I have had some opportunities of making comparison between the condition of the free negroes of the north and the slaves of the south, and the comparison has left not only an indelible impression of the superior advantages of the latter, but has gone far to reconcile me to slavery itself. Never have I felt so forcibly that touching description, “the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head,” as when I have seen this unhappy race, naked and houseless, almost starving in the streets, and abandoned by all the world. Sir, I have seen in the neighborhood of one of the most moral, religious, and refined cities of the north, a family of free blacks, driven to the caves of the rocks, and there obtaining a precarious subsistence from charity and plunder.

When the gentleman from Massachusetts adopts and reiterates the old charge of weakness as resulting from slavery, I must be permitted to call for the proof of those blighting effects which he ascribes to its influence. I suspect that when the subject is closely examined, it will be found that there is not much force even in the plausible objection of the want of physical power in slaveholding states. The power of a country is compounded of its population and its wealth, and in modern times, where, from the very form and structure of society, by far the greater portion of the people must, even during the continuance of the most desolating wars, be employed in the cultivation of the soil and other peaceful pursuits, it may be well doubted whether slaveholding states, by reason of the superior value of their productions, are not able to maintain a number of troops in the field fully equal to what could be supported by states with a larger white population, but not possessed of equal resources.

It is a popular error to suppose that, in any possible state of things, the people of a country could ever be called out en masse, or that a half, or a third, or even a fifth part of the physical force of any country could ever


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/118

 character of the reasonings it introduced. The trigonometrical section of the book had been issued as a separate treatise (Wittenberg, 1542) under the care of Rheticus. The only work published by Copernicus on his own initiative was a Latin version of the Greek Epistles of Theophylact (Cracow, 1509). His treatise De monetae cudendae ratione, 1526 (first printed in 1816), written by order of King Sigismund I., is an exposition of the principles on which it was proposed to reform the currency of the Prussian provinces of Poland. It advocates unity of the monetary system throughout the entire state, with strict integrity in the quality of the coin, and the charge of a seigniorage sufficient to cover the expenses of mintage.

—Rheticus was the only contemporary biographer of Copernicus, and his narrative perished irretrievably. Gassendi’s jejune Life (Paris, 1654) is thus the earliest extant of any note. It was supplemented, during the 19th century, by the various publications of J. Sniadecki (Warsaw, 1803–1818); of J. H. W. Westphal, J. Czynski, M. Curtze, H. A. Wolynski, F. Hipler, and others, but their efforts were overshadowed by Dr Leopold Prowe’s exhaustive Nicolaus Coppernicus (Berlin, 1883–1884), embodying the outcome of researches indefatigably prosecuted for over thirty years. The first volume (in two parts) is a detailed biography of the great astronomer; the second includes some of his minor writings and correspondence, family records, and historical documents of local interest. The effects of his Italian sojourn upon the nascent ideas of Copernicus may be profitably studied in Domenico Berti’s Copernico e le vicende del sistema Copernicano in Italia (Roma, 1876), and in G. V. Schiaparelli’s I Precursori del Copernico nell’ antichità (Milano, 1873). A centenary edition of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was issued at Thorn in 1873, and a German translation by C. L. Menzzer in 1879.

COPIAPÓ, a city of northern Chile, capital of the province of Atacama, about 35 m. from the coast on the Copiapó river, in lat. 27° 36′ S., long. 70° 23′ W. Pop. (1895) 9301. The Caldera & Copiapó railway (built 1848–1851 and one of the first in South America) extends beyond Copiapó to the Chañarcillo mines (50 m.) and other mining districts. Copiapó stands 1300 ft. above sea-level and has a mean temperature of about 67° in summer and 51° in winter. Its port, Caldera, 50 m. distant by rail, is situated on a well-sheltered bay with good shipping facilities about 6 m. N. of the mouth of the Copiapó river. Copiapó is perhaps the best built and most attractive of the desert region cities. The river brings down from the mountains enough water to supply the town and irrigate a considerable area in its vicinity. Beyond the small fertile valley in which it stands is the barren desert, on which rain rarely falls and which has no economic value apart from its minerals (especially saline compounds). Copiapó was founded in 1742 by José de Manso (afterwards Conde de Superunda, viceroy of Peru) and took its name from the Copayapu Indians who occupied that region. It was primarily a military station and transport post on the road to Peru, but after the discovery of the rich silver deposits near Chañarcillo by Juan Godoy in 1832 it became an important mining centre. It has a good mining school and reduction works, and is the supply station for an extensive mining district. For many years the Famatina mines of Argentina received supplies from this point by way of the Come-Caballo pass.  COPING (from “cope,” Lat. capa), in architecture, the capping or covering of a wall. This may be made of stone, brick, tile, slate, metal, wood or thatch. In all cases it should be weathered to throw off the wet. In Romanesque work it was plain and flat, and projected over the wall with a throating to form a drip. In later work a steep slope was given to the weathering (mainly on the outer side), and began at the top with an astragal; in the Decorated style there were two or three sets off; and in the later Perpendicular period these assumed a wavy section, and the coping mouldings were continued round the sides, as well as at top and bottom, mitreing at the angles, as in many of the colleges at Oxford. The cheapest type of coping is that which caps the ordinary 9 in. brick wall, and consists of brick on edge above a double tile creasing, all in cement; the creasing consisting of one or two rows of tiles laid horizontally on the wall and projecting on each side about 2 in. to throw off the water (see also ).  COPLAND, ROBERT (fl. 1515), English printer and author, is said to have been a servant of William Caxton, and certainly worked for Wynkyn de Worde. The first book to which his name is affixed as a printer is The Boke of Justices of Peace (1515), at the sign of the Rose Garland, in Fleet Street, London. Anthony à Wood supposed, on the ground that he was more educated than was usual in his trade, that he had been a poor scholar of Oxford. His best known works are The hye way to the Spyttell hous, a dialogue in verse between Copland and the porter of St Bartholomew’s hospital, containing much information about the vagabonds who found their way there; and Jyl of Breyntfords Testament, dismissed in Athenae Oxonienses (ed. Bliss) as “a poem devoid of wit or decency, and totally unworthy of further notice.” He translated from the French the romances of Kynge Appolyne of Thyre (W. de Worde, 1510), The History of Helyas Knyght of the Swanne (W. de Worde, 1513), and The Life of Ipomydon (Hue of Rotelande), not dated. Among his other works is The Complaynte of them that ben too late maryed, an undated tract printed by W. de Worde.

William Copland, the printer, supposed to have been his brother, published three editions of Howleglas, perhaps by Robert, which in any case represent the earliest English version of Till Eulenspiegel.

The Knyght of the Swanne was reprinted in Thom’s Early Prose Romances, vol. iii., and by the Grolier Club (1901); the Hye Way in W. C. Hazlitt’s Remains of the Early Popular Poetry of England, vol. iv. (1866). See further the “Forewords” to Dr F. J. Furnivall’s reprint of Jyl of Breyntford (for private circulation, 1871) and J. P. Collier, Bibliographical and Critical Account of the Rarest Books in the English Language, vol. i. p. 153 (1865). For the books issued from his press see Hand-Lists of English Printers (1501–1556), printed for the Bibliographical Society in 1896.

 COPLESTON, EDWARD (1776–1849), English bishop, was born at Offwell in Devonshire, and educated at Oxford. He was elected to a tutorship at Oriel College in 1797, and in 1800 was appointed vicar of St Mary’s, Oxford. As university professor of poetry (1802–1812) he gained a considerable reputation by his clever literary criticism and sound latinity. After holding the office of dean at Oriel for some years, he succeeded to the provostship in 1814, and owing largely to his influence the college reached a remarkable degree of prosperity during the first quarter of the 19th century. In 1826 he was appointed dean of Chester, and in the next year he was consecrated bishop of Llandaff. Here he gave his support to the new movement for church restoration in Wales, and during his occupation of the see more than twenty new churches were built in the diocese. The political problems of the time interested him greatly, and his writings include two able letters to Sir Robert Peel, one dealing with the Variable Standard of Value, the other with the Increase of Pauperism (Oxford, 1819).  COPLEY, JOHN SINGLETON (1737–1815), English historical painter, was born of Irish parents at Boston, Massachusetts. He was self-educated, and commenced his career as a portrait-painter in his native city. The germ of his reputation in England was a little picture of a boy and squirrel, exhibited at the Society of Arts in 1760. In 1774 he went to Rome, and thence in 1775 came to England. In 1777 he was admitted associate of the Royal Academy; in 1783 he was made Academician on the exhibition of his most famous picture, the “Death of Chatham,” popularized immediately by Bartolozzi’s elaborate engraving; and in 1790 he was commissioned to paint a portrait picture of the defence of Gibraltar. The “Death of Major Pierson,” in the National Gallery, also deserves mention. Copley’s powers appear to greatest advantage in his portraits. He was the father of Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst.  COPPÉE, FRANÇOIS ÉDOUARD JOACHIM (1842–1908), French poet and novelist, was born in Paris on the 12th of January 1842. His father held a small post in the civil service, and he owed much to the care of an admirable mother. After passing through the Lycée Saint-Louis he became a clerk in the ministry of war, and soon sprang into public favour as a poet of the young “Parnassian” school. His first printed verses date from 1864. They were republished with others in 1866 in

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/118