text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/485

 The House of Assembly consists (as originally constituted) of 121 members, elected by single-membered constituencies, each constituency containing as nearly as possible the same number of voters. Of these members the Cape Province returns 51, the Transvaal 36, and Natal and Orange Free State 17 each. As population increases the total number of members may be raised to 150. The seats allotted to each province are determined by its number of European male adults as ascertained by a quinquennial census, the quota for a constituency being obtained by dividing the total number of such adults in the Union as ascertained at the 1904 census by the number of members at the establishment of the Union. The commission charged with the delimitation of constituencies is permitted to vary the quota as much as 15% either way. Members of the House of Assembly must, like senators, be British subjects of European descent, they must be qualified to be registered as voters and have lived for five years within the Union. A general election must take place every five years, and all polls must be taken on the same day. There must be a session of parliament every year, so arranged that twelve months shall not elapse between the last day of one session and the first sitting of the next session.

The qualifications of parliamentary voters are those which existed in the several colonies at the establishment of the Union, save that “no member of His Majesty's regular forces on full pay” can be registered as a voter. As the franchise laws in the several colonies differed the qualifications of voters in the provinces differ also. In the Transvaal and Orange Free State provinces the franchise is restricted to white adult male British subjects. In neither province is there any property qualification, but a six months' residence before registration is required. In (q.v.) there is a low property qualification. In that province coloured persons are not by name debarred from the franchise, but they are in practice excluded. In the Cape province, where there is also a low property qualification, no colour bar exists and there are a large number of Kaffir voters (see for the vote, but no law which would deprive coloured persons in the Cape province of the franchise can be effective “unless the bill be passed by both houses of parliament sitting together and at the third reading be agreed to by not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of both houses.”
 * Constitution). Parliament may alter the qualifications

Save as subject, ultimately, to the British parliament the Union parliament is a sovereign body. The provinces have no original authority, possessing only such powers as are delegated to them by the parliament. In certain cases the governor-general must reserve the royal assent to bills, e.g. any bill abolishing the coloured vote in the Cape province. The king is given the power to disallow any law within a year of it having received the assent of the governor-general.

With regard to bills the two houses are not in a position of equality. Bills appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, must originate in the House of Assembly and may not be amended by the Senate. If a bill passed by the Assembly has been twice rejected by the Senate, provision is made for a joint sitting of both houses, when members vote and decide upon the measure concerned as one body. In the case of a money bill rejected by the Senate a joint sitting to decide its fate may be held in the same session in which the Senate has failed to pass the bill. Every minister of state may sit and speak in either house, but can vote only in the house of which he is a member. Re-election is not necessary on the appointment of a member as a minister of state. Members of parliament are paid £400 a year, £3 being deducted from this allowance for every day's absence during the session.

A Supreme Court of Judicature for South Africa was created at the establishment of the Union. The former Supreme, High and Circuit Courts of the several colonies then became provincial and local divisions of the Supreme Court of South Africa, which consists of two divisions, namely the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division. Appeals from the decisions of the provincial and local divisions of the court and from those of the High Court of southern Rhodesia, must be made to the appellate division of the Supreme Court. Unless special leave of the privy council be obtained there can be no appeal from the decisions of the Appellate Division, save in admiralty cases. This restriction of the power of appeal to the privy council is much greater than are the restrictions upon appeals from the Commonwealth of Australia, where appeals to the privy council lie by right from the several state Supreme Courts. The difference arises from the fact that the Commonwealth is a federation of states; whereas the Union of South Africa is but one state with but one Supreme Court. One result of this unification of the courts of South Africa is that any provincial or local division of the Supreme Court in which an action is begun can order its transference to another division if that course be deemed more convenient. Moreover the judgments of each provincial division can be registered and enforced in any other division. The administration of justice throughout the Union is vested in a minister of state who has all the powers of the attorney-generals of the several colonies at the time of the Union, save that power as to the prosecution of crimes is vested in each province in an official appointed by the governor-general in council and styled the attorney-general of the province.

Among the general provisions of the constitution the most important is that both the English and Dutch languages are official languages of the Union and are treated on a footing of equality; all records of parliament, and all notices of general public importance or interest issued by the government of the Union must be in both languages. (Persons in the public service at the establishment of the Union cannot, however, be dispensed with because of lack of knowledge of either English or Dutch.) Other general provisions enact free trade throughout the Union, but the customs and excise leviable under the laws existing in any of the colonies at the establishment of Union remain in force unless parliament otherwise provides. All persons who had been naturalized in any of the colonies are naturalized throughout the Union. All rights and obligations under conventions and agreements which were binding on any of the colonies have devolved upon the Union.

The harbours of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban are state owned, as are also nearly all the railways in the Union. All revenues derived from these services are paid into a separate fund. The administration of the railways, ports and harbours is entrusted to a board of not more than three commissioners (appointed by the governor-general in council) presided over by a minister of state. Each commissioner holds office for five years and may be reappointed. The board is directed to administer its service on business principles, due regard being had to agricultural and industrial development, &c., within the Union. So far as may be the total earnings are not to be more than are sufficient to meet necessary outlays.

Provincial Administration.—While the Union parliament has full power to make laws for the whole of the Union, to provincial councils have been delegated the immediate control of affairs relating solely to the provinces. The subjects delegated to the councils include direct taxation within the provinces for local revenue purposes, the borrowing of money (on the sole credit of the provinces) with the consent of the ministry; agriculture (within the limits defined by parliament) and municipal institutions, divisional councils, and other local institutions. The control of elementary education was also guaranteed to the provincial councils up to 1915, and thereafter until parliament otherwise provides.

The councils consist of not fewer than 25 members and not more than the number of members returned by the province to the House of Assembly. Each councillor represents a separate constituency, these constituencies, as far as possible, to be the same as the parliamentary constituencies. (In the Cape and Transvaal provinces they were the same in 1910; Natal and Orange Free State returning only 17 members to the House of Assembly, the parliamentary constituencies have been rearranged.) The qualifications for electors are the same as for parliament, and any person qualified to vote is qualified to be a member of the council. As in the Cape province coloured persons are qualified to vote, they are thus also qualified to be members of the provincial council. Any member of the provincial council who becomes a member of either House of Parliament thereupon ceases to be a member of such provincial council. Each provincial council continues for three years from the date of its first meeting and is not subject to dissolution save by effluxion of time.

The executive power in each province is invested in an officer appointed by the government and styled provincial administrator. He holds office for five years. The administrator is assisted by an executive committee of four persons elected from among its own members, or otherwise, by the provincial council on the proportional representation principle. The administrator and any other member of the executive committee, not being a member of the council, has the right to take part in the proceedings of the council, but has not the right to vote. The provincial councils have not the right to make laws, but ordinances, which must receive the assent of the governor-general in council before becoming valid.

The history of South Africa is, almost entirely, that of its colonization by European races, of their conflicts with, and influence over, its native inhabitants, and of the struggle for supremacy between the British and Dutch settlers. The little that is known concerning the doings of the natives before the appearance of the white man belongs to the domain of ethnology rather than of history. When the Portuguese first reached the southern part of Africa there was but one place in it where a civilized race held sway. This was at Sofala, the most southerly post of the East African Arabs. From that port the Arabs traded for ivory, slaves and (principally) gold with Bantu peoples of the far interior—the Rhodesia of to-day. These natives, whose earliest existing buildings may go back to the time of the Norman Conquest, were in a higher state of

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/485


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Immigration

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


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Innocent/Innocent IV


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/89

 ment in marriage is ‘traditio’ rather than, as Gratian would say, ‘copula carnalis,’ or, as Peter Lombard, mere ‘verba de presenti.’ Both tracts have recently been described by Professor Maitland, who has printed the ‘De Matrimonio’ in extenso. Vacarius seems to have been at Paris on the business of Archbishop Roger in 1164. Together with Richard (d. 1178) [q. v.], sixth abbot of Fountains, he was commissioned about 1166 by Alexander III to decide a matrimonial lawsuit. He accompanied Archbishop Roger when that prelate was summoned by the pope in 1171 to clear himself by oath of certain charges before the archbishop of Rouen and the bishop of Amiens at Aumâle. In 1174 he witnessed an agreement between Archbishop Roger and Hugh de Puiset [q. v.], bishop of Durham, and about the same time was judge-delegate in a controversy between the abbey of Rievaulx and Alan of Rydale. In 1175 he acted in a similar capacity between the priories of St. Faith's and Coxford in Norfolk. He occurs as witness to a charter of Gysebourne priory in 1181. Some time after 1191 he was allowed by the pope to cede half of his prebend to his nephew Reginald. The name of ‘Magister Vacarius’ occurs for the last time in 1198, in which year he was commissioned, together with the prior of Thurgarten, by Innocent III to carry into execution in the north of England a letter touching the crusade. Vacarius is not to be identified with Vacella of Mantua, a contemporary commentator upon Lombard law.

[The texts of most of the original authorities for Vacarius are set out and annotated by the present writer in Oxf. Hist. Society's Collectanea, ii. 1890. See also Wenck, Magister Vacarius (Leipzig, 1820), and in Opusc. Acad. ed. Stieber, 1834; Mühlenbruch, Obs. Juris Rom. i. 36; Hänel, in the Leipz. Lit. Zeitung, 1828, No. 42, p. 334; Savigny, Geschichte, iv. 423; Stölzel, Lehre von der operis novi denuntiatio, 1865, pp. 592–620, and in the Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte, vi. 234; Catal. gén. des MSS. des bibl. publ. de France: Départements, t. x.; F. Liebermann, in English Historical Review, 1896 pp. 305, 514 (cf. p. 747), 1898 p. 297; and Prof. F. W. Maitland, in Law Quarterly Review, 1897, pp. 133, 270.]

VACHER, CHARLES (1818–1883), painter in watercolours, was the third son of the well-known stationer and bookseller, Thomas Vacher, of 29 Parliament Street, Westminster, where he was born on 22 June 1818. He received his chief art education in the schools of the Royal Academy. In 1839 he went to pursue his studies in Rome. Many tours followed, in which he visited Italy, Sicily, France, Germany, Algeria, and Egypt, making large numbers of clever sketches in all these countries, and these furnished him with materials for his numerous drawings, which were highly finished and had an excellence of composition and an abundance of interesting details that gave his works a considerable popularity. He was a rapid worker, and, besides over two thousand sketches which he left at his death, he often executed twelve to sixteen finished works in one year, and between 1838 and 1881 he exhibited no fewer than 350 at the London exhibitions. His first exhibit at the Royal Academy was, in 1838, ‘Well at Bacharach on the Rhine,’ but the majority of his pictures—324 works in all—were shown at the gallery of the New Watercolour Society, now the Royal Institute of Painters in Watercolours, which he joined in 1846, on the introduction of his friend Louis Hague. His name first appears at the Royal Manchester Institution exhibition in 1842 as a contributor of six drawings, all of buildings in Italy. One of these, ‘Naples with Vesuvius,’ is probably that now in the South Kensington Museum. The British Museum possesses two fairly good examples of his work—‘View of City of Tombs, Cairo,’ 1863, and ‘View in the Forum, Rome’—and many others are in the possession of his widow. He died on 21 July 1883 at his residence, 4 The Boltons, West Brompton, leaving a widow, but no children. He was buried at Kensal Green cemetery. A portrait in watercolour, painted by himself, belonged to his widow, who also possessed a portrait painted in oil by Thomas Harwood (a watercolour painter) in Rome. Vacher's elder brother, George, owned a portrait of him in oil which was executed in 1850 by William Denholm Kennedy.

[Bryan's Dict. of Painters (Graves); Graves's Dict. of Artists; Athenæum, 4 Aug. 1883; private information.]

VALENCE, AYMER (d. 1260), bishop of Winchester. [See .]

VALENCE, AYMER (d. 1324). [See .]

VALENCE, WILLIAM (d. 1296). [See .]

VALENTIA, (1585-1660). [See .]

VALENTINE, BENJAMIN (d. 1652?), parliamentarian, was probably a native of Cheshire. He was elected on 3 March 1627–1628 to represent the borough of St. Germans in the parliament of 1628–9. He was in the House of Commons on 2 March 1628–9


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/486

 development than the Bushmen and Hottentots living farther south. The part played by the various native races in modifying the character of the European colonization will be best considered as they successively came into contact with the white settlers. At this point it is only necessary to state that at the same time as the Europeans were slowly extending northward from the south-western point of the continent, a conquering race of Bantu negro stock, originating from somewhere beyond the Zambezi, was spreading southward along the western side of the country.

A. From the Discovery of the Cape to the Great Trek.—What led to the discovery of America led also to the discovery, exploitation and colonization of South Africa. In the 15th century the great Eastern trade with Europe was carried on by the Venetian Republic—Venice was the gate from West to East, and her fleets, richly laden with goods brought down to the shores of the Mediterranean in caravans, supplied Europe with the luxuries of the Orient. It was in that century that Portugal rose to prominence as a maritime power; and being anxious to enjoy at first hand some of the commerce which had brought such prosperity to Venice, Portugal determined to seek out an ocean pathway to the Indies. It was with this intention that Bartholomew Diaz, sailing southwards, discovered the Cape of Good Hope in 1488. Nine years after the discovery of the Cape by Diaz another Portuguese expedition was fitted out under Vasco da Gama. Da Gama entered Table Bay, but did not land. Thence he pushed on round the coast, landed in Mossel Bay, then sailing up the south-east coast he sighted land again on the 25th of December 1497, and named it in honour of the day, Natal. Still proceeding northwards he entered the Quilimane River and eventually reached India.

For many years subsequent to this date South Africa represented merely an inconvenient promontory to be rounded on the voyage to the Indies. Ships stopped at different ports, or rather at such few natural harbours as the inhospitable coast offered, from time to time, but no attempt was made by the Portuguese to colonize the southern end of the continent. On the west coast their southernmost settlement for a long period was Benguella, and the history of (q.v.) had not until the last quarter of the 19th century any close connexion with that of South Africa. On the east coast the Portuguese were masters of Sofala by 1506, and a trading-post was first established in Delagoa Bay in 1545. Here alone Portugal obtained an important foothold in South Africa. But between Benguella on the west and Lourenço Marques on the east the Portuguese made no attempt to form permanent settlements or trading stations along the coast. It was too barren a shore to prove attractive when the riches of East Africa and India were available.

The first Europeans to follow in the wake of the Portuguese voyagers were the English. In 1601 the English East India Company fitted out a fleet of five vessels, which sailed from Torbay. After four months at sea they dropped their anchors in Table Bay, where they

remained for seven weeks before proceeding eastwards. From that time forward Table Bay was used as an occasional port of call for British ships, and in 1620 two English captains formally took possession of the Cape in the name of James I. This patriotic act was not, however, sufficiently appreciated by either King James I. or the English East India Company to evoke any official confirmation on their part. Meanwhile the Dutch East India Company had been formed in Holland, and the Dutch had entered keenly into the competition for the glittering prizes of Eastern commerce. In 1648 one of their ships was stranded in Table Bay, and the shipwrecked crew were left to forage for themselves on shore for several months. They were so pleased with the resources of the country that on their return to Holland they represented to the directors of the company the great advantages that would accrue to the Dutch Eastern trade from a properly provided and fortified station of call at the Cape. The result was that in 1652 a fort and vegetable gardens were laid out at Table Bay by a Dutch expedition sent for the purpose under a surgeon named Jan van Riebeek.

In 1657 a few soldiers and sailors, discharged by the Dutch East India Company, had farms allotted them, and these men constituted the first so-called “free burghers.” By this step the station became a plantation or settlement. More settlers were landed from time to

time, including a number of orphan girls from Amsterdam, and during 1688–1689 the colony was greatly strengthened by the arrival of some three hundred Huguenots (men, women and children), who were located at Stellenbosch, Drakenstein, Frenchhoek and Paarl. In process of time the French settlers were absorbed in the Dutch population, but they have had an enduring influence on the character of the people. The little settlement gradually spread eastwards, and in 1754 the country as far as Algoa Bay was included in the colony. At this time the white colonists numbered eight to ten thousand. They possessed numerous slaves, grew wheat in sufficient quantity to make it an article of export, and were famed for the good quality of their wines. But their chief wealth was in cattle. Such prosperity as they enjoyed was in despite of the system of government prevailing. All through the latter half of the 17th and the whole of the 18th century troubles arose from time to time between the colonists and the government. The administration of the Dutch East India Company was of an extremely despotic character. The most complete account of the company’s tenure and government of the Cape was written in 1857 by E. B. Watermeyer, a Cape colonist of Dutch descent residing in Cape Town. He points out that it was after failing to find a route by the north-east to China and Japan that the Dutch turned their eyes to the Cape route. The Cape of Good Hope subsequently “became not a colony of the Republic of the United Provinces, but a dependency of the ‘Netherlands Chartered General East India Company’ for mercantile purposes; and to this fact principally can be traced the slow progress, in all but extension of territory, of a country which was settled by Europeans within thirty years of the time when the Pilgrim Fathers, the founders of a mighty empire, landed at Plymouth to plant democratic institutions and European civilization in the West.”

On the settlement under van Riebeek, and the position in it which the so-called “free burghers” enjoyed, this candid Dutch writer throws an interesting light.

When it is borne in mind that the Dutch at the Cape were for one hundred and forty-three years under the rule of the Dutch East India Company, the importance of a correct appreciation of the nature of that rule to any student of South African history is obvious. No modern writer approaches Watermeyer either in the completeness of his facts or the severity of his indictment. Referring to the policy of the company, Watermeyer says:—

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/486


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/90

 when Speaker Finch would have obeyed the king's direction for adjournment. Valentine, with Denzil Holles [q. v.], held the speaker down in his seat while Sir John Eliot [q. v.] read out resolutions questioning the king's proceedings respecting religion and taxation. On 5 March, with Selden and Coryton, he was under examination at the council board, and was committed to the Tower. On 17 March he was examined before a committee of the council, when he refused to answer any questions respecting acts done in parliament. On 6 May he, with Selden, Holles, Strode, Hobart, and Long, considering themselves legally entitled to bail, applied to the court of king's bench for a writ of habeas corpus. Such stringent conditions were, however, imposed that Valentine absolutely declined to comply with them, and refused to accept bail (3 Oct. 1629). On 7 May an information was filed against him and others by the attorney-general in the Star-chamber, but the prisoners were proceeded against in the court of king's bench. Valentine's ‘plea and demurrer’ to the information of Attorney-general Heath, prepared by his counsel, Robert Mason [q. v.] and Henry Calthorpe [q. v.], was issued on 22 May, and was followed by a further plea on 1 June in answer to the altered information of 29 May. With Selden he should have appeared before the judges of the king's bench on 24 June, had not the king reversed the order for fear that bail should be granted. On 13 Oct. Heath brought in his information against Eliot, Holles, and Valentine in the court of king's bench. On 29 Oct. the three prisoners were transferred from the Tower to the Marshalsea. They appeared in court on 26 Jan. 1630, and again the following day, when Valentine's case was pleaded by Calthorpe. Judgment was pronounced on 12 Feb., when Valentine was fined 500l.

During the summer of 1630 Valentine, with Selden and Strode, was removed to the Gatehouse on account of the sickness in the town. Through the leniency of their keeper they were frequently released on short paroles. They visited Eliot in the Tower, and passed whole weeks in the country in their own houses or in those of their friends. Returning to the Gatehouse towards the end of September, they were put into closer confinement, and their keeper fined 100l. and committed to the Marshalsea. Valentine continued a prisoner for eleven years, and was finally released in January 1640. He took the protestation on 5 May 1641, and the covenant on 25 Sept. 1643. He was elected to represent St. Germans in the Long parliament. Compensation for his losses was granted him by the parliament between 1643 and 1648. Valentine died before 1653. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Springham, by whom he had at least one son, Matthias, who died in the winter of 1653–4, and is described in his will as of St. Clement Danes, Middlesex (P. C. C., Alchin, 319).

[Gardiner's Hist. of England; Calendar of Lancashire and Cheshire Exchequer (Record Soc.), 1885, p. 123; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1628–9; Forster's Sir John Eliot, vol. ii. passim; Official Ret. of M.P.'s, i. 474, 487; Lords' Journals, vii. 17, 18, ix. 187, 205; Addit. MSS. 20778 f. 11, 33924 f. 38; Familiæ Minorum Gentium (Harl. Soc.), p. 1307; Calthorpe's Argument for Valentine is preserved among the manuscripts in the Library of Exeter College, Oxford; information from Mr. W. Duncombe Pink.]  VALLANCEY, CHARLES (1721–1812), antiquary, whose name is spelt Vallancy in the army list, was born in 1721 at Windsor, where his father, a French protestant, who ceased to call himself De Vallance on the general change of foreign names in the reign of Queen Anne, held a post in the royal service. He joined the engineers, and on 26 Jan. 1762 became engineer in ordinary in Ireland. In 1798 he became lieutenant-general, and in 1803 general. While on the Irish establishment he was employed in a military survey, and became interested in the history, language, and antiquities of Ireland. He never acquired the vernacular or a real knowledge of the Irish of old manuscripts, of which he says that he made himself ‘master as far as his leisure would permit,’ nor did he ever read any of the chronicles. In 1772 he published an ‘Essay on the Celtic Language,’ accompanied by a grammar of the Irish language, dedicated to Jacob Bryant [q. v.] A fuller and better printed edition of the grammar, with a preface containing parts of the essay, was published in Dublin in 1773 as ‘A Grammar of the Iberno-Celtic or Irish Language,’ and dedicated to Sir Lucius Henry O'Brien [q. v.], who must indeed have been ignorant of his own language to suppose that Vallancey knew anything of it. The address in Irish to the learned of Ireland, the vocabulary, and the examples were written by a native whose name is not given, and the part composed by Vallancey is the assertion of the close resemblances between Punic, Kalmuck, the language of the Algonkin Indians of North America, and Irish. The statements made in some passages show that the asserted author was ignorant of what had been said in others. The first edition contains copies,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/91

 probably printed from some Cavan manuscript, of the Plearaca na Ruarcach, of which Swift wrote an English version, and of Carolan's poem, ‘Mas tinn no slan atharlaigheas fein,’ and these are probably the first printed editions of the poems. They were replaced in the second edition by the hymn of St. Fiacc of Sletty, from Colgan's text (‘Trias Thaumaturga’). The ‘Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis,’ 1770–1804, in six volumes, ‘Vindication of the History of Ireland,’ 1786, ‘Ancient History of Ireland proved from the Sanskrit Books,’ have the same defects. Their facts are never trustworthy and their theories are invariably extravagant. Vallancey may be regarded as the founder of a school of writers who theorise on Irish history, language, and literature, without having read the original chronicles, acquired the language, or studied the literature, and who have had some influence in retarding real studies, but have added nothing to knowledge. His last work, ‘Prospectus of a Dictionary of the Language of the Aire Coti, or Ancient Irish,’ appeared in 1802, and can only be compared to the writings of La Tour d'Auvergne on Breton. It dwells upon the likeness of Irish to Egyptian, Persian, and Hindustani. He was secretary to the Society of Antiquaries of Ireland in 1773, and in 1784 was elected F.R.S. He designed the plans of the Queen's Bridge in Dublin, and prepared a scheme for the defence of Dublin in 1798. He died in Dublin on 8 Aug. 1812. His portrait is in the Royal Irish Academy.

Besides the works mentioned, Vallancey was the author of two translations from the French:
 * 1) ‘Essay on Fortification,’ Dublin, 1757, 8vo.
 * 2) ‘The Field Engineer,’ by the Chevalier de Clairac, Dublin, 1760, 8vo.

VALLANS, WILLIAM (fl. 1578–1590), poet, son of John Vallans, was born near Ware in Hertfordshire, and afterwards carried on business as a salter. He was a friend of Camden and other antiquaries, and himself took an interest in antiquarian matters. In 1590 he published a poem in unrhymed hexameters entitled ‘A Tale of Two Swannes,’ printed by Roger Ward for John Sheldrake (London, 4to). In the poem he announced his intention of leaving England, and likened his farewell verses to the swan's dying song. The poem is devoted to a description of the situation and antiquities of several towns in Hertfordshire, and mention is made of many seats in the county belonging to the queen and nobility. Vallans probably carried out his intention of leaving England soon after. His poem is one of the earliest examples of the employment of blank verse in English literature outside the drama, and he was perhaps induced to attempt this form of metre by his admiration for [q. v.], from whose translation of Thomas Watson's Latin ‘Odes’ he quotes. His book is extremely rare. It was reprinted by (1678–1735) [q. v.] in 1711 in the fifth volume of his edition of Leland's ‘Itinerary’ from a copy in the possession of (1681–1725) [q. v.] Another poem by ‘William Vallans, salter,’ is preserved in the Harleian manuscripts (No. 367, f. 129). It complains of the injustice of suffering John Stowe to go unrewarded after compiling his ‘Survey of London.’ Vallans had some commendatory verses prefixed to ‘Whartons Dreame,’ published in 1578; and Hearne assigns to him the authorship of ‘The Honourable Prentice; or thys Tayler is a Man; shewed in the Life and Death of Sir John Hawkewood,’ by W. V., London, 1615 4to, 1616 4to (Bodleian Library).

VALOGNES or VALONIIS, PHILIP (d. 1215), styled a baron and lord of Panmure, came of a family which took its name from Valognes in the Cotentin. Peter de Valognes, given in the peerages as Philip's grandfather, is said to have accompanied William I to England, to have received from him ‘fifty-seven lordships in the counties of Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hertford, Cambridge, and Lincoln,’ and to have been high sheriff of Essex in 1087 (, Peerage, ed. Wood, ii. 348; cf., Norfolk, passim). His son Robert left, by his wife Agnes, six sons, of whom Robert was father of two daughters: Gunnor, who married [q. v.], and Isabella, who married, third earl of Essex [q. v.] Another son, Geoffrey, was lord of the manor of Burton in Yorkshire, and died in 1190.

Philip was the fifth son, and is said to have migrated to Scotland towards the end of the reign of [q. v.], who died in 1165. He is said to have been a constant attendant on Malcolm's successor, William the Lion, and on 8 Dec. 1174, when William purchased his release from Henry II by acknowledging his feudal suzerainty and the superiority of the English church, Philip de Valognes was one of the hostages given into Henry's custody (Cal. Doc. relating to


text:
United States Code/Title 11/Chapter 5/Section 501

§ 501. Filing of proofs of claims or interests

 * (a) A creditor or an indenture trustee may file a proof of claim. An equity security holder may file a proof of interest.

 * (b) If a creditor does not timely file a proof of such creditor’s claim, an entity that is liable to such creditor with the debtor, or that has secured such creditor, may file a proof of such claim.

 * (c) If a creditor does not timely file a proof of such creditor’s claim, the debtor or the trustee may file a proof of such claim.

 * (d) A claim of a kind specified in section 502 (e)(2), 502 (f), 502 (g), 502 (h) or 502 (i) of this title may be filed under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section the same as if such claim were a claim against the debtor and had arisen before the date of the filing of the petition.

 * (e) A claim arising from the liability of a debtor for fuel use tax assessed consistent with the requirements of section 31705 of title 49 may be filed by the base jurisdiction designated pursuant to the International Fuel Tax Agreement (as defined in section 31701 of title 49) and, if so filed, shall be allowed as a single claim.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/92

 , i. 139;, ''Doc. illustrating the Hist. of Scotl''. pp. 64, 83;, Fœdera, Record ed. i. 30–1). As a recompense William granted Philip de Valognes the manors of Panmure and Benvie in Forfarshire, and about 1180 appointed him high chamberlain of Scotland. After the death of his brother Geoffrey in 1190, Philip seems to have held the manor of Burton in Yorkshire, for the seisin of which he paid 300l. and ten palfreys in 1208 (, ''Rot. de Oblat''. 1199–1216, p. 428). He also held other manors belonging to Geoffrey during the minority of his niece Gunnor (ib. p. 425). On 7 Aug. 1209 he was again a hostage for William the Lion. He was continued in the office of chamberlain by Alexander II on his accession in 1214, and died on 5 Nov. 1215. He was buried in the chapter-house of Melrose Abbey, to which he had confirmed a grant of lands in Ringwood, Roxburghshire; he also gave the monks of Cupar an acre of land in Stichindehaven.

Philip left one son, William, who succeeded him as high chamberlain of Scotland, and, dying in 1219, left three daughters: Christian, who married Sir Peter de Maule, ancestor of the earls of Panmure; Sibilla, who married Robert de Stuteville [q. v.]; and Lora, who married Henry de Baliol, high chamberlain of Scotland and grand-uncle of John Baliol, king of Scotland (Notes and Queries, 6th ser. v. 142; other accounts make Sibilla and Lora daughters of Philip de Valognes).

VALPY, ABRAHAM JOHN (1787–1854), editor and printer, was the second son of [q. v.] by his second wife, Mary, daughter of Henry Benwell of Caversham, Oxfordshire. He was born in 1787, and, after being trained under his father at the Reading grammar school, matriculated from Pembroke College, Oxford, on 25 April 1805. He was elected on 30 March 1808 Bennet (Ossulston) scholar of his college, graduated B.A. in 1809, M.A. in 1811, and for a short time from 7 June 1811 was fellow on the same foundation. In 1809 he printed for private circulation ‘Poemata quæ de præmio Oxoniensibus posito annis 1806, 1807, et 1808 infeliciter contenderunt.’

Valpy published at Reading in December 1804, while still a schoolboy, and with a dedication to his fellow-pupils, a volume of ‘Epistolæ M. T. Ciceronis excerptæ,’ which reached a fifth edition in 1829. He flattered himself with the hope of rivalling the fame of Aldus and Stephanus as a classical printer and editor, and with this object in view he was bound apprentice to a freeman of London, Humphrey Gregory Pridden. In 1807 he was admitted a liveryman of the Stationers' Company.

Valpy commenced business in Took's Court, Chancery Lane. In 1822 he moved to Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, where William Bowyer, the English printer whom Valpy hoped to equal in reputation for learning, had ended in 1777 his career in business. For many years he published, either under his own editing or under the supervision of some classical scholar, numerous works, especially in ancient literature. The chief work edited by himself was an edition of Brotier's ‘Tacitus,’ which came out in 1812 in five volumes, and was afterwards more than once reissued. His principal assistants in editing were E. H. Barker of Thetford, George Burges, George Dyer, and T. S. Hughes. Most of the volumes that he published bore on the title-page the Greek digamma, which he adopted as a trade-mark and monogram. He is said to have placed it on his carriage (Notes and Queries, 3rd ser. vi. 51, 96, 135–6). About 1837 he sold his printing materials, parted with his large stock of books and copyrights, and retired into private life. From that date he applied his energies to the University Life Assurance Company and to other undertakings in which he was interested either as a director or a shareholder. He died without issue at St. John's Wood Road, London, on 19 Nov. 1854. He married at Burrington, Somerset, on 25 Feb. 1813, Harriet, third daughter of Sydenham Teast Wylde, vicar of that parish. She survived him, dying at St. John's Wood Road on 19 June 1864.

An oil painting of Valpy, three-quarter-length, was the property of G. C. B. Valpy, formerly of 13 Portland Place, London, W.

The ‘Classical Journal’ was started by Valpy in 1810, and continued by him until December 1829, and from March 1813 to December 1828 he brought out the ‘Pamphleteer’ in fifty-eight quarterly parts. His first great work was the reissue of the ‘Thesaurus Græcæ Linguæ’ of Henry Stephens the younger (cf. Classical Journal, No. xix., 1814). The ‘Thesaurus,’ which Valpy and Barker edited, came out between 1816 and 1828 in twelve volumes, and the last of them was in two parts, containing the ‘Glossaria


text:
United States Code/Title 11/Chapter 5/Section 502

§ 502. Allowance of claims or interests

 * (a) A claim or interest, proof of which is filed under section 501 of this title, is deemed allowed, unless a party in interest, including a creditor of a general partner in a partnership that is a debtor in a case under chapter 7 of this title, objects.

 * (b) Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—
 * (1) such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;
 * (2) such claim is for unmatured interest;
 * (3) if such claim is for a tax assessed against property of the estate, such claim exceeds the value of the interest of the estate in such property;
 * (4) if such claim is for services of an insider or attorney of the debtor, such claim exceeds the reasonable value of such services;
 * (5) such claim is for a debt that is unmatured on the date of the filing of the petition and that is excepted from discharge under section 523 (a)(5) of this title;
 * (6) if such claim is the claim of a lessor for damages resulting from the termination of a lease of real property, such claim exceeds—
 * (A) the rent reserved by such lease, without acceleration, for the greater of one year, or 15 percent, not to exceed three years, of the remaining term of such lease, following the earlier of—
 * (i) the date of the filing of the petition; and
 * (ii) the date on which such lessor repossessed, or the lessee surrendered, the leased property; plus
 * (B) any unpaid rent due under such lease, without acceleration, on the earlier of such dates;
 * (7) if such claim is the claim of an employee for damages resulting from the termination of an employment contract, such claim exceeds—
 * (A) the compensation provided by such contract, without acceleration, for one year following the earlier of—
 * (i) the date of the filing of the petition; or
 * (ii) the date on which the employer directed the employee to terminate, or such employee terminated, performance under such contract; plus
 * (B) any unpaid compensation due under such contract, without acceleration, on the earlier of such dates;
 * (8) such claim results from a reduction, due to late payment, in the amount of an otherwise applicable credit available to the debtor in connection with an employment tax on wages, salaries, or commissions earned from the debtor; or
 * (9) proof of such claim is not timely filed, except to the extent tardily filed as permitted under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 726 (a) of this title or under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, except that a claim of a governmental unit shall be timely filed if it is filed before 180 days after the date of the order for relief or such later time as the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure may provide, and except that in a case under chapter 13, a claim of a governmental unit for a tax with respect to a return filed under section 1308 shall be timely if the claim is filed on or before the date that is 60 days after the date on which such return was filed as required.

 * (c) There shall be estimated for purpose of allowance under this section—
 * (1) any contingent or unliquidated claim, the fixing or liquidation of which, as the case may be, would unduly delay the administration of the case; or
 * (2) any right to payment arising from a right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance.

 * (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the court shall disallow any claim of any entity from which property is recoverable under section 542, 543, 550, or 553 of this title or that is a transferee of a transfer avoidable under section 522 (f), 522 (h), 544, 545, 547, 548, 549, or 724 (a) of this title, unless such entity or transferee has paid the amount, or turned over any such property, for which such entity or transferee is liable under section 522 (i), 542, 543, 550, or 553 of this title.

 * (e)
 * (1) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section and paragraph (2) of this subsection, the court shall disallow any claim for reimbursement or contribution of an entity that is liable with the debtor on or has secured the claim of a creditor, to the extent that—
 * (A) such creditor’s claim against the estate is disallowed;
 * (B) such claim for reimbursement or contribution is contingent as of the time of allowance or disallowance of such claim for reimbursement or contribution; or
 * (C) such entity asserts a right of subrogation to the rights of such creditor under section 509 of this title.
 * (2) A claim for reimbursement or contribution of such an entity that becomes fixed after the commencement of the case shall be determined, and shall be allowed under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, or disallowed under subsection (d) of this section, the same as if such claim had become fixed before the date of the filing of the petition.

 * (f) In an involuntary case, a claim arising in the ordinary course of the debtor’s business or financial affairs after the commencement of the case but before the earlier of the appointment of a trustee and the order for relief shall be determined as of the date such claim arises, and shall be allowed under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section or disallowed under subsection (d) or (e) of this section, the same as if such claim had arisen before the date of the filing of the petition.

 * (g)
 * (1) A claim arising from the rejection, under section 365 of this title or under a plan under chapter 9, 11, 12, or 13 of this title, of an executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor that has not been assumed shall be determined, and shall be allowed under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section or disallowed under subsection (d) or (e) of this section, the same as if such claim had arisen before the date of the filing of the petition.
 * (2) A claim for damages calculated in accordance with section 562 shall be allowed under subsection (a), (b), or (c), or disallowed under subsection (d) or (e), as if such claim had arisen before the date of the filing of the petition.

 * (h) A claim arising from the recovery of property under section 522, 550, or 553 of this title shall be determined, and shall be allowed under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, or disallowed under subsection (d) or (e) of this section, the same as if such claim had arisen before the date of the filing of the petition.

 * (i) A claim that does not arise until after the commencement of the case for a tax entitled to priority under section 507 (a)(8) of this title shall be determined, and shall be allowed under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, or disallowed under subsection (d) or (e) of this section, the same as if such claim had arisen before the date of the filing of the petition.

 * (j) A claim that has been allowed or disallowed may be reconsidered for cause. A reconsidered claim may be allowed or disallowed according to the equities of the case. Reconsideration of a claim under this subsection does not affect the validity of any payment or transfer from the estate made to a holder of an allowed claim on account of such allowed claim that is not reconsidered, but if a reconsidered claim is allowed and is of the same class as such holder’s claim, such holder may not receive any additional payment or transfer from the estate on account of such holder’s allowed claim until the holder of such reconsidered and allowed claim receives payment on account of such claim proportionate in value to that already received by such other holder. This subsection does not alter or modify the trustee’s right to recover from a creditor any excess payment or transfer made to such creditor.

 * (k)
 * (1) The court, on the motion of the debtor and after a hearing, may reduce a claim filed under this section based in whole on an unsecured consumer debt by not more than 20 percent of the claim, if—
 * (A) the claim was filed by a creditor who unreasonably refused to negotiate a reasonable alternative repayment schedule proposed on behalf of the debtor by an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency described in section 111;
 * (B) the offer of the debtor under subparagraph (A)—
 * (i) was made at least 60 days before the date of the filing of the petition; and
 * (ii) provided for payment of at least 60 percent of the amount of the debt over a period not to exceed the repayment period of the loan, or a reasonable extension thereof; and
 * (C) no part of the debt under the alternative repayment schedule is nondischargeable.
 * (2) The debtor shall have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that—
 * (A) the creditor unreasonably refused to consider the debtor’s proposal; and
 * (B) the proposed alternative repayment schedule was made prior to expiration of the 60-day period specified in paragraph (1)(B)(i).


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/93

 Græco-Latina’ of Labbé. This vast enterprise suffered from a crushing article by Charles James Blomfield (afterwards bishop of London) in the ‘Quarterly Review,’ xxii. 302–48 (1820).

Between 1819 and 1830 Valpy reissued in 141 volumes the well-known Delphin classics under the editorial care of George Dyer [q. v.], and from January 1822 to December 1825 he was patron, printer, and publisher of a periodical called ‘The Museum.’ During the years 1830–4 he brought out ‘The Family Classical Library; English translations of Greek and Latin classics,’ in fifty-two volumes, and in 1831 he started an ‘Epitome of English Literature,’ in the philosophical portion of which appeared a condensation of Paley's ‘Moral Philosophy,’ Paley's ‘Evidences of Christianity,’ and Locke's ‘Essay on the Human Understanding.’ An edition of ‘The Plays and Poems of Shakspere’ was published by him in fifteen volumes (1832–4), and in 1834 he began a serial work on the ‘National Gallery of Painting and Sculpture,’ but only four half-crown parts saw the light.

[Gent. Mag. 1813 i. 282, 1855 i. 204–5, 1864 ii. 126; Burke's Family Records, 1897, p. 612; Foster's Alumni Oxon.; Nichols's Lit. Anecdotes, ix. 759; information from Mr. George Wood, bursar of Pembroke College.]

VALPY, EDWARD (1764–1832), classical scholar, fourth son of Richard Valpy of St. John's, Jersey, by his wife Catherine, daughter of John Chevalier, was born at Reading in 1764. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, graduating B.D. in 1810. After leaving college he acted for many years as a master at Reading school under his brother, Richard Valpy [q. v.] In 1810 he was elected high master of Norwich school, which greatly improved under his direction. In 1819 he became rector of All Saints, Thwaite, and vicar of St. Mary, South Walsham, both in Norfolk. These livings he held till his death at Yarmouth on 15 April 1832. Valpy married Anne, daughter of Thomas Western of Great Abington, Cambridgeshire, and widow of Chaloner-Byng Baldock, vicar of Milton Abbey in Dorset. By her he had a son, the Rev. Edward John Western Valpy, who died in 1830.

Valpy published: 1. ‘Elegantiæ Latinæ; or Rules and Exercises illustrative of Elegant Latin Style,’ 1803, which went through ten editions in his lifetime. 2. ‘The Greek Testament, with English notes, selected and original,’ 3 vols. 1815, 8vo; this work was well received and was much improved in a new edition of 1826 (, Compendious Introduction, 1827).

[Gent. Mag. 1832, i. 373; General Hist. of Norfolk, 1829, ii. 977, 1051, 1351; Foster's Index Ecclesiasticus.]

VALPY, RICHARD (1754–1836), schoolmaster, was the eldest son of Richard and Catherine Valpy, on whose estate in St. John's parish, Jersey, he was born on 7 Dec. 1754. Edward Valpy [q. v.] was his younger brother. The family is of great antiquity in the island (, Armorial of Jersey). In 1764 Valpy was sent to a school at Valognes, Normandy, and five years later to Southampton grammar school. He removed to Guildford grammar school, and while still a pupil there he published by subscription a volume of verses entitled ‘Poetical Blossoms.’ On 1 April 1773 he entered Pembroke College, Oxford, as a Morley scholar. He graduated B.A. in 1776, took orders in 1777, and was appointed second master of Bury St. Edmunds school. He proceeded M.A. in 1784 and B.D. and D.D. in 1792. In 1788 he was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries.

In 1781 Valpy was appointed headmaster of Reading school, then in a depressed condition. Under his guidance, which continued through fifty years, the school was raised to the highest standard it ever reached. In 1790 Valpy built a house, at his own expense, to receive pupils from a distance, who previously had been lodged in the town. He also added largely to the master's house. Among his pupils were Peter Paul Dobree [q. v.], Sir William Bolland [q. v.], Sir John Keane [q. v.], John Merewether [q. v.], Henry Alworth Merewether [q. v.], Bulkeley Bandinel [q. v.], John Jackson (1811–1885) [q. v.], Francis Jeune [q. v.], and Sir Thomas Noon Talfourd [q. v.] (Registers of Reading School).

Valpy inspired his pupils with an intense personal affection (see especially the notice prefixed to Ion, 4th edit.), and had the reputation of being one of the hardest floggers of his day. His school-books, especially his grammars, achieved a wide popularity in England. He was an enthusiastic lover of English and Latin poetry, and possessed considerable literary taste, combined with the faculty of inspiring his boys with admiration for English literature, at a time when such a taste was rare in schools. He adapted several English, Latin, and Greek plays for performance by his boys, and on the occasion of the triennial visitation of the school these were acted in the town-hall for the benefit of local charities


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/487

 The Dutch colonial system as exemplified at the Cape of Good Hope, or rather the system of the Dutch East India Company (for the nation should not wholly suffer under the condemnation justly incurred by a trading association that sought only pecuniary profit), was almost without one redeeming feature, and was a dishonour to the Netherlands' national name. In all things political it was purely despotic; in all things commercial, it was purely monopolist. The Dutch East India Company cared nought for the progress of the colony—provided only that they had a refreshment station for their richly laden fleets, and that the English, French, Danes and Portuguese had not. Whatever tended to infringe in the slightest degree on their darling monopoly was visited with the severest penalties, whether the culprit chanced to be high in rank or low. An instance of this, ludicrous while grossly tyrannical, is preserved in the records. Commander van Quaelbergen, the third of the Dutch governors of the colony, was dismissed from the government in 1667, and expelled the service of the company, because he had interchanged civilities with a French governor bound eastwards, the United Provinces being then at peace with France.

Of this nature was the foreign policy of the Dutch company at the Cape of Good Hope; modified, indeed, in some degree from time to time, but governed by principles of jealous, stringent monopoly until the surrender of the colony by Commissioner Sluysken in 1795. The internal government of the colonists for the entire duration of the East India Company's rule was always tyrannical, often oppressive in the extreme. With proclamations, placaats and statutes abundantly filling huge tomes, the caprice of the governor was in truth the law. A mockery of popular institutions, under the name of a burgher council, indeed existed; but this was a mere delusion, and must not be confounded with the system of local government by means of district burgher councils which that most able man, Commissioner de Mist, sought to establish during the brief government of the Batavian Republic from 1803 to 1806, when the Dutch nation, convinced and ashamed of the false policy by which they had permitted a mere money-making association to disgrace the Batavian name, and to entail degradation on what might have been a free and prosperous colony, sought to redeem their error by making this country a national colonial possession, instead of a slavish property, to be neglected, oppressed or ruined, as the caprice or avarice of its merchant owners might dictate.

From time to time servants in the direct employment of the company were endowed with the right of “freeburghers,” but the company retained the power to compel them to return into its service whenever they deemed it necessary. This right to enforce into servitude those who might incur the displeasure of the governor or other high officers was not only exercised with reference to the individuals themselves who had received this conditional freedom; it was, adds Watermeyer, claimed by the government to be applicable likewise to the children of all such. The effect of this tyranny was inevitable: it drove men to desperation. They fled from oppression; and thus trekking began, not in 1835, as is generally stated, but before 1700. From 1720 to 1780 trekking had gone steadily forwards. In 1780 van Plettenberg, the governor, proclaimed the Sneeuwbergen the northern boundary of the colony, expressing “the anxious hope that no more extension should take place, and with heavy penalties forbidding the rambling peasants to wander beyond.” In 1789 so strong had feeling amongst the burghers become that delegates were sent from the Cape to interview the authorities at Amsterdam. After this deputation some nominal reforms were granted; but in 1795 a number of burghers settled in the Swellendam and Graaf Reinet districts drove out the officials of the company and established independent governments. The rebellion was accompanied by an assertion of rights on the part of the burghers or freemen, which contained the following clause, the spirit of which animated many of the Trek Boers:—

After one hundred and forty-three years the rule of the Dutch East India Company came to an end at the Cape. What its principles were we already have seen. Watermeyer recapitulates its effects as follows:—

To this one further note must be added. The Trek Boers of the 19th century were the lineal descendants of the Trek Boers of the 18th. What they had learnt of government from the Dutch East India Company they carried into the wilderness with them. The end of the 19th century saw a revival of this same tyrannical monopolist policy in the Transvaal. If Watermeyer's formula, “In all things political, purely despotic; in all things commercial, purely monopolist,” was true of the government of the Dutch East India Company in the 18th century, it was equally true of Kruger's government in the latter part of the 19th.

The rule of the Dutch East India Company was extinguished (September 1795) by the occupation of the colony by the British, who acted on behalf of the prince of Orange, Holland having fallen under the control of the revolutionary government of France. Following the peace of Amiens the colony was handed over (February 1803) by Great Britain to a commissioner of the Batavian Republic. During the eight years the British held the Cape notable reforms in the government were effected, but the country remained essentially Dutch, and few British settlers were attracted to it. Its cost to the British exchequer during this period was £16,000,000. The Batavian Republic entertained very liberal views as to the administration of the country, but they had little opportunity for giving them effect. In less than three years (January 1806) the Cape was reconquered by the British, who were at war both with France and Holland. The occupation was at first of a provisional character, but by the third additional article to the convention with the Netherlands of the 13th of August 1814 the country was definitely ceded to Great Britain. In consideration of retaining the Cape and the Dutch settlements now constituting British Guiana, Great Britain paid £6,000,000. The British title to Cape Colony is thus based upon conquest, treaty and purchase. The wishes of the inhabitants were not consulted, and among them resentment was felt at the way in which their future was thus disposed of. The Europeans at the Cape at that time numbered about 27,000.

Before tracing the history of South Africa during the 19th century, the early relations of the white settlers with the natives may be briefly reviewed. The natives first encountered at the Cape were the Hottentots (q.v.). They that time occupied the Cape peninsula and surrounding country, and in the early days of the settlement caused the colonists a considerable amount of trouble. An extract from the diary of van Riebeek in 1659 will best illustrate the nature of the relations existing between colonists and natives at that time:—

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/487


text:
Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)/Gwynn, Eleanor

GWYNN, ELEANOR, better known by the name of “Nell,” a celebrated mistress of King Charles II.; born in London about 1650. She was at first an orange girl, and also gained her bread by singing from tavern to tavern. About 1667 she became the mistress of Lord Buckhurst, who surrendered her about 1670 to the king. As mistress of the king she had an establishment, and was made lady of the privy chamber to Queen Catharine. She was merry and open-hearted, is said to have been faithful to Charles, mindful of old friends, and a liberal patroness of the poets Dryden, Lee, Otway, and Butler. From her are sprung the dukes of St. Albans. She died about 1690.


text:
United States Code/Title 11/Chapter 5/Section 503

§ 503. Allowance of administrative expenses

 * (a) An entity may timely file a request for payment of an administrative expense, or may tardily file such request if permitted by the court for cause.

 * (b) After notice and a hearing, there shall be allowed administrative expenses, other than claims allowed under section 502 (f) of this title, including—
 * (1)
 * (A) the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate including—
 * (i) wages, salaries, and commissions for services rendered after the commencement of the case; and
 * (ii) wages and benefits awarded pursuant to a judicial proceeding or a proceeding of the National Labor Relations Board as back pay attributable to any period of time occurring after commencement of the case under this title, as a result of a violation of Federal or State law by the debtor, without regard to the time of the occurrence of unlawful conduct on which such award is based or to whether any services were rendered, if the court determines that payment of wages and benefits by reason of the operation of this clause will not substantially increase the probability of layoff or termination of current employees, or of nonpayment of domestic support obligations, during the case under this title;
 * (B) any tax—
 * (i) incurred by the estate, whether secured or unsecured, including property taxes for which liability is in rem, in personam, or both, except a tax of a kind specified in section 507 (a)(8) of this title; or
 * (ii) attributable to an excessive allowance of a tentative carryback adjustment that the estate received, whether the taxable year to which such adjustment relates ended before or after the commencement of the case;
 * (C) any fine, penalty, or reduction in credit relating to a tax of a kind specified in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph; and
 * (D) notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (a), a governmental unit shall not be required to file a request for the payment of an expense described in subparagraph (B) or (C), as a condition of its being an allowed administrative expense;
 * (2) compensation and reimbursement awarded under section 330 (a) of this title;
 * (3) the actual, necessary expenses, other than compensation and reimbursement specified in paragraph (4) of this subsection, incurred by—
 * (A) a creditor that files a petition under section 303 of this title;
 * (B) a creditor that recovers, after the court’s approval, for the benefit of the estate any property transferred or concealed by the debtor;
 * (C) a creditor in connection with the prosecution of a criminal offense relating to the case or to the business or property of the debtor;
 * (D) a creditor, an indenture trustee, an equity security holder, or a committee representing creditors or equity security holders other than a committee appointed under section 1102 of this title, in making a substantial contribution in a case under chapter 9 or 11 of this title;
 * (E) a custodian superseded under section 543 of this title, and compensation for the services of such custodian; or
 * (F) a member of a committee appointed under section 1102 of this title, if such expenses are incurred in the performance of the duties of such committee;
 * (4) reasonable compensation for professional services rendered by an attorney or an accountant of an entity whose expense is allowable under subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of paragraph (3) of this subsection, based on the time, the nature, the extent, and the value of such services, and the cost of comparable services other than in a case under this title, and reimbursement for actual, necessary expenses incurred by such attorney or accountant;
 * (5) reasonable compensation for services rendered by an indenture trustee in making a substantial contribution in a case under chapter 9 or 11 of this title, based on the time, the nature, the extent, and the value of such services, and the cost of comparable services other than in a case under this title;
 * (6) the fees and mileage payable under chapter 119 of title 28;
 * (7) with respect to a nonresidential real property lease previously assumed under section 365, and subsequently rejected, a sum equal to all monetary obligations due, excluding those arising from or relating to a failure to operate or a penalty provision, for the period of 2 years following the later of the rejection date or the date of actual turnover of the premises, without reduction or setoff for any reason whatsoever except for sums actually received or to be received from an entity other than the debtor, and the claim for remaining sums due for the balance of the term of the lease shall be a claim under section 502 (b)(6);
 * (8) the actual, necessary costs and expenses of closing a health care business incurred by a trustee or by a Federal agency (as defined in section 551 (1) of title 5) or a department or agency of a State or political subdivision thereof, including any cost or expense incurred—
 * (A) in disposing of patient records in accordance with section 351; or
 * (B) in connection with transferring patients from the health care business that is in the process of being closed to another health care business; and
 * (9) the value of any goods received by the debtor within 20 days before the date of commencement of a case under this title in which the goods have been sold to the debtor in the ordinary course of such debtor’s business.

 * (c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), there shall neither be allowed, nor paid—
 * (1) a transfer made to, or an obligation incurred for the benefit of, an insider of the debtor for the purpose of inducing such person to remain with the debtor’s business, absent a finding by the court based on evidence in the record that—
 * (A) the transfer or obligation is essential to retention of the person because the individual has a bona fide job offer from another business at the same or greater rate of compensation;
 * (B) the services provided by the person are essential to the survival of the business; and
 * (C) either—
 * (i) the amount of the transfer made to, or obligation incurred for the benefit of, the person is not greater than an amount equal to 10 times the amount of the mean transfer or obligation of a similar kind given to nonmanagement employees for any purpose during the calendar year in which the transfer is made or the obligation is incurred; or
 * (ii) if no such similar transfers were made to, or obligations were incurred for the benefit of, such nonmanagement employees during such calendar year, the amount of the transfer or obligation is not greater than an amount equal to 25 percent of the amount of any similar transfer or obligation made to or incurred for the benefit of such insider for any purpose during the calendar year before the year in which such transfer is made or obligation is incurred;
 * (2) a severance payment to an insider of the debtor, unless—
 * (A) the payment is part of a program that is generally applicable to all full-time employees; and
 * (B) the amount of the payment is not greater than 10 times the amount of the mean severance pay given to nonmanagement employees during the calendar year in which the payment is made; or
 * (3) other transfers or obligations that are outside the ordinary course of business and not justified by the facts and circumstances of the case, including transfers made to, or obligations incurred for the benefit of, officers, managers, or consultants hired after the date of the filing of the petition.


text:
United States Code/Title 11/Chapter 5/Section 504

§ 504. Sharing of compensation

 * (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person receiving compensation or reimbursement under section 503 (b)(2) or 503 (b)(4) of this title may not share or agree to share—
 * (1) any such compensation or reimbursement with another person; or
 * (2) any compensation or reimbursement received by another person under such sections.

 * (b)
 * (1) A member, partner, or regular associate in a professional association, corporation, or partnership may share compensation or reimbursement received under section 503 (b)(2) or 503 (b)(4) of this title with another member, partner, or regular associate in such association, corporation, or partnership, and may share in any compensation or reimbursement received under such sections by another member, partner, or regular associate in such association, corporation, or partnership.
 * (2) An attorney for a creditor that files a petition under section 303 of this title may share compensation and reimbursement received under section 503 (b)(4) of this title with any other attorney contributing to the services rendered or expenses incurred by such creditor’s attorney.

 * (c) This section shall not apply with respect to sharing, or agreeing to share, compensation with a bona fide public service attorney referral program that operates in accordance with non-Federal law regulating attorney referral services and with rules of professional responsibility applicable to attorney acceptance of referrals.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/94

 (Star, London, 1818 and 1821;, Memoirs of an Octogenarian; Reading School Poems, ed. Valpy, 1804). His adaptation of Shakespeare's ‘King John’ was performed at Covent Garden in 1803.

In 1787 Valpy was collated to the rectory of Stradishall, Suffolk. He retired from the headmastership in 1830, his youngest son succeeding him; but he still retained partial control, and took the upper sixth. He died at Earl's Terrace, Kensington, on 28 March 1836, and is buried in Kensal Green cemetery. It is said that he twice refused a bishopric.

Valpy married, first, in 1778, Martha, daughter of John Cornelius of Caundé, Guernsey; secondly, in 1782, Mary, daughter of Henry Benwell of Caversham, Oxfordshire. By his first wife he had one daughter, and by his second wife a family of ten children. His second son, [q. v.], is separately noticed. His publications, in addition to sermons, plays, and contributions to Young's ‘Annals of Agriculture,’ were: $ ‘Poetical Chronology of History,’ 1816; and several other school-books. There is a fine portrait of Valpy, painted by Opie and engraved by C. Turner, in the possession of Canon Valpy of Winchester; and his pupils placed a bust of him in St. Lawrence's Church, Reading.
 * 1) ‘Poetical Blossoms,’ 1772.
 * 2) ‘Greek Grammar,’ 1809.
 * 3) ‘Latin Grammar,’ 1809.
 * 4) ‘Elements of Mythology,’ 1815.
 * 5) ‘Greek Delectus,’ 1815.
 * 6) ‘Latin Delectus,’ 1816.

Valpy's youngest son, (1797–1882), born at Reading on 22 Feb. 1797, was educated at Reading and at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was a Bell scholar, and graduated B.A. in 1819, and M.A. in 1824. He succeeded his father in 1830 as headmaster of Reading school; but under him the number of scholars sank in a few years from nearly two hundred to thirty. He inherited his father's scholarship and eloquence, but lacked his powers of organising and teaching. He resigned, and was for a time master of Burton-on-Trent school. In 1854 he purchased the advowson of Garveston rectory, Norfolk. He died on 28 Nov. 1882, and is buried at Garveston. He married, first, in 1825, Eliza, daughter of John Pullen of Canonbury; and, secondly, in 1866, Mary, daughter of John Champion of Guernsey. He was a good Greek scholar, and published several school-books, etymological dictionaries of Greek and Latin, and editions of Sophocles's ‘Ajax’ and ‘Electra.’

VANAKEN, JOSEPH (1699?-1749), portrait-painter. [See .]

VANBRUGH or VANBURGH, JOHN (1664–1726), dramatist and architect, born in the parish of St. Nicolas Acons, and christened 24 Jan. 1663–4, was the son of Giles Vanbrugh (1631–1689), who married in 1660 Elizabeth, fifth and youngest daughter of Sir Dudley Carleton, nephew and heir of Sir, viscount Dorchester [q. v.] His grandfather, Gillis van Brugg of Ghent (who was probably related to Van den Bergh, the pupil of Rubens, born at Ypres in 1615), emigrated from West Flanders, obtained letters of denization from James I, resided as a merchant in the parish of St. Stephen's, Walbrook (Misc. Gen. et Herald. ii. 116), became a churchwarden, and was on 21 June 1646 buried in St. Stephen's Church. The dramatist's father, Giles, migrated from London to Chester in 1667, and set up as a sugar-baker. He was buried in Holy Trinity Church, Chester, on 19 July 1689 (Notes and Queries, 1st ser. viii. 232). His will was proved on 24 July 1689 by the widow, who survived until 13 Aug. 1711, and was buried at Thames Ditton (for an abstract of the will, see ib. 2nd ser. i. 117). Sir John's first cousin, William Vanbrugh, was nominated by Evelyn for the secretaryship of the Greenwich Hospital commission, 31 May 1695, subsequently became secretary and comptroller of the treasury chamber, and died on 20 Nov. 1716. ‘Mr. George Vanbrugh,’ song-writer, who flourished 1710–25, was probably the son of this William (cf. Brit. Mus. Cat. Music).

After education, in all probability at Chester grammar school, John Vanbrugh was sent in 1683 to France, where he received his architectural training. Yet his stay in France was brief, as he was back in London by the close of 1685, and early in the new year he received a commission in Owen Maccarthy's company in the Earl of Huntingdon's regiment (commission dated Whitehall, 30 Jan. 1685–6). The regiment was originally formed by Huntingdon in June 1685, and after his death in 1701 became known as the 13th foot, or East Somerset regiment. Vanbrugh subsequently became a captain in this regiment (Comm. to ‘Jno. Van Brook’ dated 10 March 1702, see, Army Lists, iii. 409). In the summer of 1690 Vanbrugh was seized at Calais upon


text:
Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)/Gymnasium

GYMNASIUM, a public place or building where the Greek youths exercised themselves, fitted up with running and wrestling grounds, baths, and rooms or halls for conversation and discussion. These were the favorite resorts of youth, and for this reason were frequented by teachers, especially philosophers. The three great gymnasia of Athens were the Academy, where Plato taught; the Lyceum, where Aristotle labored; and the Cynosarges. In this connection it is easy to understand the transference of the name to educational institutions. The German gymnasium is an upper school where instruction is carried on largely by means of the classical tongues, preparing its pupils for the university, and corresponding roughly to the grammar and public schools of England and the grammar and high schools of Scotland.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/95

 information from a lady in Paris to the effect that he was travelling without a passport. His arrest was approved by the authorities, who held out hopes of an early exchange. In May 1691 he was transferred to Vincennes, where his treatment appears to have undergone a change for the worse. About the same time Sir Dudley North made a proposal to the effect that his brother Montagu and Vanbrugh, who were both prisoners in France, should be exchanged against M. Bertelier, a French agent of some importance who was detained in Newgate, but nothing came of this suggestion. In January 1692, with a view of silencing complaints, Louis XIV ordered Vanbrugh to be transferred to the Bastille. He was put in the fourth chamber of the ‘Tour de Liberté,’ and was allowed to take exercise at will and to receive his friends. Many years afterwards he gave the name of Bastille to a house which he built for himself at Greenwich. Voltaire repeats a saying of his that he had not the slightest idea what gained him the distinction of detention in such a fortress (, Lettres sur les Anglais, No. xix.). It was not until 22 Nov. 1692 that he was set at liberty, M. de Lagny, fermier général, standing surety for him to a large amount (‘Corresp. of Pontchartrain’ and ‘Journal of Du Junca,’ dep. governor, ap., Archives de la Bastille, ix. 338–46; cf. ). Vanbrugh is said to have employed some of his enforced leisure in drafting a comedy, the nucleus as it proved of his famous ‘Provok'd Wife.’

For a time Vanbrugh seems to have resumed his military duties; on 31 Jan. 1695–6 he was, as ‘John Brooke,’ granted a captain's commission in Berkeley's marine regiment of foot, and henceforth until he was knighted was known to the town as ‘Captain Vanbrugh.’

The production of Cibber's ‘Love's Last Shift’ at the Theatre Royal in January 1695–6 inspired Vanbrugh to give a comedy to the stage. He thought that it would be interesting to develop the situation upon which Cibber had rung down the curtain, and the result was the ‘Relapse,’ ‘got, conceived, and born in six weeks' space’ (Prologue). It was not, however, until Boxing-day 1696 that the ‘Relapse’ was given at the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane with Cibber as Lord Foppington. This was Vanbrugh's inimitable enlargement of Cibber's original conception of a typical fop, known before his elevation to the peerage as Sir Novelty Fashion. Sir Fopling Flutter in Etherege's ‘Man of Mode’ suggests a faint outline of the part, but Foppington is vastly superior. The performance was an unqualified success, and well within the normal limit of eight days was published the ‘Relapse, or Vertue in Danger, being the sequel of the Fool in Fashion: a Comedy’ (1697, 4to; a second quarto appeared in 1698; again 1708; 1711, 12mo; 1735, 12mo; 1770, 8vo).

The play remained a prime favourite with the public throughout the eighteenth century, and has passed through several transformations. A three-act farce, called ‘The Man of Quality,’ was carved out of it by Lee and given at Covent Garden in 1776; and in the following year Sheridan, reflecting that it was ‘a pity to exclude the productions of our best writers for want of a little wholesome pruning,’ recast it as ‘A Trip to Scarborough.’ The original play was seen at the Olympic in 1846, and at the Strand as late as 1850. A version by Mr. John Hollingshead, also called ‘The Man of Quality,’ was produced at the Gaiety on 7 May 1870 with Miss Nellie Farren as Miss Hoyden, a part in which Mrs. Jordan had excelled; and another, called ‘Miss Tomboy,’ by Mr. Robert Buchanan, at the Vaudeville on 20 March 1890 (cf. Theatre, 1 May 1890).

The ‘Relapse’ was followed at a very short interval by ‘Æsop,’ a free version of the first part of Edmond Boursault's ‘Les Fables d'Ésope,’ a favourite piece in Paris in 1690. Vanbrugh's superiority in wit and humour to his original is shown as decisively as his inferiority in the matter of sentiment. It seems to have been produced at Drury Lane about 15 Jan. 1697, and was published anonymously in quarto in the same month (the second part, forming a translation of ‘Ésope à la Cour,’ the best of Boursault's pieces—produced in 1701, but then prohibited by Louis XIV—does not appear to have been acted in England; it was appended to a second quarto of 1697; again in 8vo 1711, and Dublin 1725).

‘Æsop’ hardly sustained Vanbrugh's reputation, but by May 1697 he had another play ready. This was his well-known comedy, ‘The Provok'd Wife,’ a piece the indecencies of which, according to Dr. Blair, ‘ought to explode it out of all reputable society.’ The same comedy, in the mind of Charles James Fox, entitled Vanbrugh to be called ‘almost as great a genius as ever lived’ (, Recollections, 1859, p. 32). Originally, it is said, planned in the Bastille, this pre-eminently strong play was produced by Betterton at Lincoln's Inn Fields about 20 May 1697, the great actor himself playing Sir John Brute, while Lady Brute was sustained by Mrs. Barry, and Belinda by Bracegirdle (it was simultaneously published


text:
United States Code/Title 11/Chapter 5/Section 505

§ 505. Determination of tax liability

 * (a)
 * (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the court may determine the amount or legality of any tax, any fine or penalty relating to a tax, or any addition to tax, whether or not previously assessed, whether or not paid, and whether or not contested before and adjudicated by a judicial or administrative tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
 * (2) The court may not so determine—
 * (A) the amount or legality of a tax, fine, penalty, or addition to tax if such amount or legality was contested before and adjudicated by a judicial or administrative tribunal of competent jurisdiction before the commencement of the case under this title;
 * (B) any right of the estate to a tax refund, before the earlier of—
 * (i) 120 days after the trustee properly requests such refund from the governmental unit from which such refund is claimed; or
 * (ii) a determination by such governmental unit of such request; or
 * (C) the amount or legality of any amount arising in connection with an ad valorem tax on real or personal property of the estate, if the applicable period for contesting or redetermining that amount under any law (other than a bankruptcy law) has expired.

 * (b)
 * (1)
 * (A) The clerk shall maintain a list under which a Federal, State, or local governmental unit responsible for the collection of taxes within the district may—
 * (i) designate an address for service of requests under this subsection; and
 * (ii) describe where further information concerning additional requirements for filing such requests may be found.
 * (B) If such governmental unit does not designate an address and provide such address to the clerk under subparagraph (A), any request made under this subsection may be served at the address for the filing of a tax return or protest with the appropriate taxing authority of such governmental unit.
 * (2) A trustee may request a determination of any unpaid liability of the estate for any tax incurred during the administration of the case by submitting a tax return for such tax and a request for such a determination to the governmental unit charged with responsibility for collection or determination of such tax at the address and in the manner designated in paragraph (1). Unless such return is fraudulent, or contains a material misrepresentation, the estate, the trustee, the debtor, and any successor to the debtor are discharged from any liability for such tax—
 * (A) upon payment of the tax shown on such return, if—
 * (i) such governmental unit does not notify the trustee, within 60 days after such request, that such return has been selected for examination; or
 * (ii) such governmental unit does not complete such an examination and notify the trustee of any tax due, within 180 days after such request or within such additional time as the court, for cause, permits;
 * (B) upon payment of the tax determined by the court, after notice and a hearing, after completion by such governmental unit of such examination; or
 * (C) upon payment of the tax determined by such governmental unit to be due.

 * (c) Notwithstanding section 362 of this title, after determination by the court of a tax under this section, the governmental unit charged with responsibility for collection of such tax may assess such tax against the estate, the debtor, or a successor to the debtor, as the case may be, subject to any otherwise applicable law.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/96

Vanbrugh in quarto as ‘The Provok'd Wife: a Comedy as it is acted at the New Theatre in Little Lincoln's Inn Fields, by the Author of a New Comedy call'd the Relapse;’ again 1709, 1710, 1743, 1770; a French translation, ‘La femme poussée à bout,’ appeared in ‘Mélange curieux des meilleures pièces attribuées à Mr. de Saint-Evremond,’ Amsterdam, 1726, i. 235). Sir John Brute was afterwards one of Garrick's great parts (cf. Zoffany's fine picture of him in this rôle at the Garrick Club).

Two such plays as the ‘Relapse’ and the ‘Provok'd Wife’ supplied Jeremy Collier with unrivalled material for his philippic against the stage, and the ‘Short View,’ upon its appearance in March 1698, contained not only frequent allusions to Vanbrugh, but a detailed analysis of the contents of the ‘Relapse’ (chap. v.). On 8 June appeared Vanbrugh's ‘Short Vindication of the Relapse and the Provok'd Wife from Immorality and Profaneness.’ Though it contains a few strokes of wit, the rejoinder proved even more futile than Congreve's.

An interval followed in Vanbrugh's dramatic activity. His next contribution to the theatre was an alteration (from verse to prose, to suit the taste of the day) of Beaumont and Fletcher's ‘Pilgrim,’ which was produced at Drury Lane to celebrate the advent of ‘a new century’ (25 March 1700). On the third night Dryden took his ‘last benefit,’ contributing a prologue and epilogue which were spoken by Colley Cibber, and testify to the unfailing vigour of the veteran. The association would seem to point to a fraternal amity between Dryden and one of his most brilliant successors. The adaptation witnessed the triumph (in the rôle of Alinda) of Anne Oldfield [q. v.], who owed to Vanbrugh this first chance of recommending herself to the public (see, ed. Scott, viii. 439–64; , Hist. of Stage, 1749, p. 201; , Nance Oldfield, 1899). Next of Vanbrugh's pieces appeared the ‘False Friend,’ produced at Drury Lane at the end of January 1702, and published in February without the author's name (London, 4to; ‘Friendship à la Mode: a Comedy of two acts altered from Sir John Vanbrugh,’ appeared at Dublin, 1766, 8vo). The ‘False Friend’ is a free rendering of Le Sage's ‘Traître puni,’ which is itself a version of Francisco de Rojas Zorrilla's ‘La Traicion busca el castigo.’ The fact that Vanbrugh repairs some of the ‘cuts’ made by Le Sage points to his knowledge of the original (perhaps in the literal translation into French published at the Hague in 1700). In the prologue the author speaks of gradually abating the immorality which had been charged against contemporary plays, but he addresses himself to the task in the most cautious fashion.

Vanbrugh had already laid two of the three best French playwrights of his time under contribution. In his ‘Country House,’ a farce produced at Drury Lane on 16 June 1705 (and probably earlier), he levied a first tax upon a third, Carton Dancourt, the ‘Teniers of French comedy,’ whose ‘Maison de campagne’ had appeared on 27 Jan. 1688 (Vanbrugh's farce was published anonymously, London, 12mo, 1715; reprinted as ‘La Maison Rustique,’ 1740; what is apparently an eighteenth-century adaptation forms Addit. MS. 25959). Again, in the ‘Confederacy,’ the most vivacious of Vanbrugh's pieces, and perhaps of English prose comedies before Sheridan, he closely followed Dancourt's ‘Les Bourgeoises à la mode’ (1692). ‘The Confederacy’ was given on 30 Oct. 1705 at the new theatre built by Vanbrugh in the Haymarket, and printed as ‘by the Author of the Relapse’ on 15 Nov. (‘The Confederacy. As it is acted at the Queen's Theatre in the Haymarket,’ reprinted 1735). Richard Estcourt adapted the same piece of Dancourt in ‘The Fair Example’ (first printed in 1706), but he managed to miss the characteristic excellencies of the original, whereas Vanbrugh in his adaptation surpassed them in every direction (note especially the advantage of Brass over Dancourt's ‘Frontin’). That in spite of the strength of the cast, including Dogget, Booth, Barry, Porter, and Bracegirdle, the ‘Confederacy’ should have had a run of barely a week, must be attributed mainly to the notorious acoustic defects of the theatre. The public, too, may have been to some extent shocked by a play which has been described as the lowest in point of morality to which English comedy ever sank.

In the meantime Vanbrugh had collaborated with Congreve and Walsh in the version of Molière's ‘Monsieur de Pourceaugnac’ produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields on 30 March 1704 under the title of ‘Squire Trelooby’ (originally performed in 1670, Molière's play had already been extensively ‘borrowed from’ by Ravenscroft in his ‘Careless Lovers’ of 1673). The translation, printed at the end of April 1704, differed considerably from the acted play, and was disowned by the collaborators. It was modified again by John Ralph prior to its reproduction and republication as ‘The Cornish Squire: a Comedy,’ in 1734 (see, iii. 409; and , Bibl. Cornub. ii. 820; , Congreve, p. 148).

Before the close of 1705 Vanbrugh secured


text:
United States Code/Title 11/Chapter 5/Section 506

§ 506. Determination of secured status

 * (a)
 * (1) An allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest, or that is subject to setoff under section 553 of this title, is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property, or to the extent of the amount subject to setoff, as the case may be, and is an unsecured claim to the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest or the amount so subject to setoff is less than the amount of such allowed claim. Such value shall be determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition or use of such property, and in conjunction with any hearing on such disposition or use or on a plan affecting such creditor’s interest.
 * (2) If the debtor is an individual in a case under chapter 7 or 13, such value with respect to personal property securing an allowed claim shall be determined based on the replacement value of such property as of the date of the filing of the petition without deduction for costs of sale or marketing. With respect to property acquired for personal, family, or household purposes, replacement value shall mean the price a retail merchant would charge for property of that kind considering the age and condition of the property at the time value is determined.

 * (b) To the extent that an allowed secured claim is secured by property the value of which, after any recovery under subsection (c) of this section, is greater than the amount of such claim, there shall be allowed to the holder of such claim, interest on such claim, and any reasonable fees, costs, or charges provided for under the agreement or State statute under which such claim arose.

 * (c) The trustee may recover from property securing an allowed secured claim the reasonable, necessary costs and expenses of preserving, or disposing of, such property to the extent of any benefit to the holder of such claim, including the payment of all ad valorem property taxes with respect to the property.

 * (d) To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void, unless—
 * (1) such claim was disallowed only under section 502 (b)(5) or 502 (e) of this title; or
 * (2) such claim is not an allowed secured claim due only to the failure of any entity to file a proof of such claim under section 501 of this title.


text:
Page:The Celtic Review volume 4.djvu/290

Rh in the north. It is lost in Sutherland in fichead, twenty; beannaichte, blessed; mallaichte, cursed, there ‘mullait,’ with meaning of ‘wicked,’ and in cluich, play. ‘Dealrait' for dealraichte, brightened, etc., also occurs in a hymn published with those of Donald Matheson, Kildonan, Sutherland, and composed probably by one of his sons. In West Ross ch is lost in cluich, but is more apt in that district to be sounded h. In Gairloch a phrase used to order one out of a house sounds ‘Gabh am fhoith,’ literally, ‘Take the green.’ The word is faich, a green, a lawn, Irish faithche, and is pronounced ‘foih’ and also, at all events in a couple of place-names, fothaigh (‘fohi’). The latter is an oblique case taking the place of the nominative. An Fhothaigh is a small township at Aultbea, and Foy Lodge, Lochbroom, is in Gaelic Tigh na Fothaigh. With fothaigh, which is the regular genitive of the word in the district, may be compared clothaigh (‘clohi’), the pronunciation there of cloiche, genitive of clach, a stone. The pronunciations here also of foipe, roimpe, and troimpe, respectively ‘fòhi,’ ‘ròhi,’ and tròhi (o nasal in two last), dealt with below, are to be kept in view.

The West Ross duainidh, bad, ill of looks or of conduct, notwithstanding that it is duaineil in Sutherland, seems to be for duaichnidh, which, however, comes from du-aithne.

Flichne, sleet, a derivative of fluich, wet, is flinne in Arran, Islay, and Skye. In West Ross flichneadh-shneachd (dh = g) is used. MacAlpine gives flichne for Cowal and Coll, Armstrong has flichne and flicheann; the latter on the face of it should be a Perthshire pronunciation of the word.

Among Scottish Gaelic dialects loss or absence of slender ch in medial and final positions is peculiarly characteristic of the speech of Arran and, though perhaps in a less degree, of Kintyre and Islay. Medially it is silent in Arran in fichead, twenty, flichne, sleet, timchioll, around, pronounced ‘tiumall,’ the personal name Mìcheil, Michael; in passive participles of ich verbs, as beannaichte, blessed; ionnsuichte, taught; in dìchioll, diligence, at the north end of the island, and others. In the future indicative and other parts of


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/97

 the co-operation of Betterton in another adaptation from Molière (the early ‘Dépit Amoureux’ of 1653, which was in its turn derived from ‘L' Interesse’ of Nicolò Secchi). The English version, entitled ‘The Mistake,’ was represented for the first time on 27 Dec. 1705 at the Haymarket, and was played six times consecutively. It was published without the author's name by Tonson in January 1706 (‘The Mistake. A Comedy as it is acted at the Queen's Theatre in the Haymarket,’ London, 4to). A greatly abbreviated version, entitled ‘Lovers' Quarrels; or like Master, like Man,’ was produced at Covent Garden on 11 Feb. 1790, and is attributed to the actor Thomas King [q. v.], who took the part of Sancho (printed in London Stage, 1824, vol. iii.; cf., vi. 600). Vanbrugh's version was printed in 1893 among the ‘Plays from Molière by English Dramatists’ (Sir Hundred Books, No. 61).

There are signs of hasty workmanship in ‘The Mistake’ (especially in the last two acts), and henceforth, as his architectural work became more and more engrossing, Vanbrugh's dramatic career was stifled. His sole remaining drama, ‘The Journey to London,’ which promised to be second to none of his comedies, was left (at his death in 1726) in a fragmentary condition. Colley Cibber undertook to complete and recast the fragment. The result was a comedy which long remained a great favourite with the playgoing public. It was first produced at Drury Lane on 10 Jan. 1728 (running twenty-eight nights) under Cibber's title, ‘The Provok'd Husband,’ and was published at the end of the month. Simultaneously was published Vanbrugh's original fragment, ‘A Journey to London. Being part of a Comedy written by the late Sir John Vanbrugh, Knight. And printed after his own copy. Which (since his Decease) has been made an Intire Play, By Mr. Cibber, And call'd The Provok'd Husband’ (London, 1728, 8vo). The fragment and the entire play appeared side by side in the editions of 1735 and 1776. A French translation, ‘Le mari poussé à bout,’ was published at London and at Lausanne (1761 and 1783, 8vo). Joseph Hunter in his ‘Chorus Vatum’ (Addit. MS. 24493, f. 194) records a tradition that in his delineation of the Wronghead family Vanbrugh intended to ridicule some of his wife's north-country relatives.

The early stages of Vanbrugh's architectural career are obscure. His first employer of note appears to have been the Earl of Carlisle, for whom he commenced a mansion upon the site of the old castle of Henderskelfe in 1701. The result was Castle Howard, which with its splendid south facade, 323 feet long, remains, in spite of incongruous additions, one of the finest examples of the Corinthian renaissance in England. The main building was not completed until 1714, but in the meantime, as a token of his approbation, Carlisle, who during the minority of the Duke of Norfolk was the acting earl-marshal of England, promised Vanbrugh the lucrative appointment of Clarenceux king-at-arms. As it was necessary by the rules of the college that a king-at-arms should have passed through the grade of herald, Vanbrugh on 21 June 1703 was appointed to the obsolete post of Carlisle herald; he was promoted Clarenceux by patent dated 29 March 1704. As Vanbrugh was not only a stranger, but was known to take a humorously sceptical view of the importance of heraldic functions (which he had publicly ridiculed in his comedy of ‘Æsop’), his appointment was not popular. More particularly Gregory King [q. v.], the senior pursuivant, was the injured man, and he ‘persuaded some other heralds to join with him in a petition against the Lord Marshalls power, but the Council unanimously supported’ Lord Carlisle (Hist. MSS. Comm. 12th Rep., App. ix. 97). Further, in 1710, when there was a rumour that Clarenceux was about to receive a reversionary grant of the office of Garter, King wrote in alarm to Harley to deprecate such an act of injustice (, Herald and Genealogist, vii. 113; Addit. MS. 9011, ff. 346 seq.; Harl. MS. 7525, f. 40;, Coll. of Arms, p. 204). Once appointed, however, Vanbrugh was a frequent attendant at the college, and in 1706 he carried out with credit Queen Anne's commission to convey the insignia of the order of the Garter to Prince George of Hanover (Instructions in Addit. MS. 6321, f. 59; cf., Memorials, 1841, p. cxxiii).

Meanwhile, in June 1702, Vanbrugh had succeeded William Talman [q. v.] in the comptrollership of the board of works at 8s. 8d. a day. In 1703 he built a house at Whitton Hall, near Hounslow (still standing, though much altered), for Sir Godfrey Kneller, who was, like himself, a member of the Kit-Cat Club. In the same year he wrote to his friend and correspondent Jacob Tonson [q. v.] that he had negotiated the purchase of the site for a new theatre, to be called the Queen's in honour of Anne. ‘The ground is the second stable yard going up the Haymarket; I give 2,000l. for it’ (the present Her Majesty's is the fourth theatre on this site). While the building was going on, Vanbrugh was annoyed by a reverberation of