text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 42.djvu/168

Rh advanced from Connaught. Muircheartach, with a light division, advanced rapidly and defeated Tadhg O'Brien, then returning to Creeve, and marched with his whole army against Turlough O'Connor. He found Ruaidhri, Turlough's son, pitching his camp at Fardrum, co. Westmeath, attacked him at once and routed his force. Turlough O'Brien was then restored as king of Munster. Turlough O'Connor tried in 1154 to attack O'Lochlainn by sea; but his fleet was defeated off Inishowen, and his commander, O'Dubhda of Connaught, was slain. Muircheartach O'Lochlainn at once invaded Connaught, but was not strong enough to obtain hostages or plunder. He then crossed the Shannon into Breifne and drove out Godfrey O'Reilly, went on to Dublin, was received as king by the Danes, and gave them twelve hundred cows, which he had collected in Meath, to secure their future service in war. In 1155 he made an expedition to Dungolman, co. Westmeath, and took hostages for the territory of Teathbha. He restored to the Meathmen the cattle he had taken from them in the previous year. Turlough O'Connor died in 1156, and this year is considered by the annalists to be the first of Muircheartach O'Lochlainn's reign as king of all Ireland. He was entitled to the succession, being of the royal race, the head of the northern Uí Neill, the descendant of Niall Naighiallach, in the two branches of whose descendants the kingships had rested, in alternate succession, for the six hundred years preceding Brian [q.v.]. The Ulidians attacked him, and he invaded Dalnaraidhe and killed O'Loingsigh the king. He then made a foray into Ossory with Diarmaid MacMurchadha, who had given him hostages. In 1157 he attended a synod at the abbey of Mellifont, co. Louth, at which a papal legate, seventeen bishops, and the Archbishop of Armagh were present. He gave to the abbey 160 cows, sixty ounces of gold, and the lands in Meath called Finnabhair-nan-Inghean. He then marched through Leinster into Desmond, and thence into Thomond, obtaining hostages; took Limerick, and received the submission of the Danes. He returned in triumph, but found that Roderic O'Connor [q.v.] had made a foray into Tyrone in his absence. O'Lochlainn had a quarrel with the Cinel Conaill in 1158, and ravaged their country. About this time he gave a charter and benefaction to the Cistercian abbey of Newry, co. Down. This charter, which has never been accurately printed, though a copy was in the possession of Sir James Ware, styles the king ‘Mauritius MagLachlain Rex totius Hiberniæ.’ In 1159 he led an army to Rubhachonaill, co. Westmeath, and deposed the king of Meath, Diarmait O'Maeleachlainn, and set up his brother Donnchadh O'Maeleachlainn over all Meath. He was threatened by the Connaughtmen, who, with the men of Breifne and of Thomond, crossed Meath to attack the Oirghialla. He came up with them at Ardee, and defeated them with great slaughter. He then marched home, and immediately after ravaged Connaught as far as Tuam, co. Galway. He returned thence by way of Meath, and quartered his army on that country. The sept of his old enemy O'Gairmleadhaigh attacked him in Tyrone after he had, in 1160, induced the chief of Fermanagh to entrap and kill Domhnall O'Gairmleadhaigh and several of the gentlemen of the sept. He defeated them in a pitched battle at Magh Luadhat, near Newtown-Stewart, co. Tyrone, and captured a great booty of cows. He met Roderic O'Connor at Assaroe to arrange a treaty, but none was made. In 1161 he took hostages from the Uí Briuin, and marched through Breifne to Lickbla, co. Westmeath. There Roderic O'Connor and Diarmaid MacMurchadha formally submitted to him, so that he was king of Ireland not only by right, but ‘cen fresabhra’ (‘without opposition’)—a term used by Irish historians to express undisputed sway. In 1162 he aided Flaibheartach O'Brolchain in improving Derry, besieged Dublin, and plundered Fingall. The Danes paid him 120 ounces of gold. He was paid one hundred ounces of gold for the kingdom of Westmeath in 1163. He again aided the Bishop of Derry, and the cathedral was rebuilt in 1164. The Ulidians attacked him in 1165, and he in return ravaged their country, banished Eochaidh MacDuinnsleibhe, their king, burnt their stronghold of Inislachan, and returned with much spoil. He gave to the church of Saul, co. Down, some land which the king of Ulidia handed over to him, with the sword of the son of the earl (probably a Dane) and many jewels. In 1166 he put out the eyes of this king Eochaidh, breaking an oath he had sworn at Armagh after the war. Donnchadh O'Cearbhaill invaded Tyrone to revenge this violation of treaty, and met the Cinel Eoghain in small force at Leitir Luin, near Newtown-Hamilton, co. Armagh. Muircheartach O'Lochlainn was there slain in 1166. He was succeeded by his son Niall.


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Baring, Thomas

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


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/210

 Wellesley  Colchester). His speeches in parliament (ed. Gurwood and Hazlitt) are in 2 vols. 1854. His conversation is reported in F. S. Larpeut's private journal, the Croker Papers, the Greville Memoirs (pts. i. and ii.), T. Raikes's Journals, S. Rogers's Recollections (pp. 195-229), Lord Stanhope's Notes of conversations with the Duke of Wellington (1831-1851), 1888, Lady De Ros's Reminiscences (pp. 117-82), Sir W. Fraser's Words on Wellington (1889), where (p. 56) the origin of the Wellington boot is explained; with these may be mentioned Timbs's Wellingtoniana, 1852, and Earl de Grey's Characteristics, 1853. Of the many biographies, the most complete is G. R. Gleig's (based upon Brialmont's), 4 vols. 1858-60, but it leaves much to be desired; it was abridged in 1862, and further in 1865. Among the other 'Lives' may be noticed Sherer's Military Memoirs, 1830 (for Lardner's Cab. Cycl.), G. N. Wright's Life and Campaigns, 4 vols. 1841, W. H. Maxwell's Life, Military and Civil, of the Duke of Wellington (Bohn), 1849, C. Macfarlane's Memoirs of the Duke of Wellington, 1853, A. H. Brialmont's Histoire du Due de Wellington, 3 vols. 1856-7, and C. D. Yonge's Life of Field Marshall the Duke of Wellington, 1860. The best biographical sketches are G. Hooper's (Men of Action series, 1889), and the obituary notice (by Henry Reeve) in the Times of 15 and 16 Sept. 1852. G. Lathom Browne's Wellington, 1888, consists of well-chosen extracts from the despatches and other books. A. Griffiths's Wellington Memorial, 1897 (with reproductions of five portraits of the duke and one of the duchess), and Wellington and Waterloo, 1898, are rich in illustrations. Jules Maurel's Due de Wellington, Brussels, 1853, E. B. Hamley's Wellington's Career, 1860, and Lord Roberts's Rise of Wellington, 1895, are valuable as general estimates. In addition to works above mentioned, see for the Peninsular war: Sir W. Napier's History (ed. 1892); Lord Londonderry's Narrative; Sir J. Jones's Sieges in Spain (ed. 1846); Porter's History of the Corps of Royal Engineers; Correspondance militaire de Napoleon, tomes v-ix.; Lanfrey's Histoire de Napoleon (ed. 1876); Thiers's Histoire du Consulat et de l'Empire; Napoleon's correspondence with Joseph. A long list of early works on the war is given at the end of Southey's History. For the Waterloo campaign, see W. Siborne's History of the War in 1815; H. T. Siborne's Waterloo Letters; Sir J. Shaw Kennedy's Notes on the Battle of Waterloo; Müffling's Passages from my Life; Commentaires de Napoléon I, tome v.; Charras's Campagne de 1815; H. Houssaye's 1815—Waterloo; Ollech's Geschichtedes Feldzuges von 1815; C. C. Chesney's Waterloo Lectures; Ropes's Campaign of Waterloo, 1893; F. Maurice's papers on Waterloo in United Service Magazine, April-October 1890. A fuller list is given at pp. 128-30 of Maurice's War. For his political relations, &c., see R. Pearce's Wellesley; Sir A. Alison's Castlereagh and Stewart; C. D. Yonge's Liverpool; E. Ashley's Palmerston (ed. 1879); Ellenborough's Diary, 1828-30 (ed. Colchester); Correspondence of Princess Lieven and Lord Grey; Malmesbury's Autobiography; T. Martin's Life of the Prince Consort; Fyffe's Modern Europe; S. Walpole's England from 1815; G. E. C[okayne]'s Complete Peerage; Doyle's Official Baronage.]

 WELLESLEY or WESLEY, GARRETT, first of Dangan and first Earl Of Mornington (1735–1781), father of the Duke of Wellington and the Marquis Wellesley, born on 19 July 1735, was the son of Richard Colley Wellesley, first baron Mornington [q. v.], by Elizabeth, eldest daughter of John Sale, registrar of the diocese of Dublin. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and graduated B.A. in 1754 and M.A. in 1757. In the latter year he was elected to the Irish House of Commons as M.P. for the family borough of Trim, co. Meath, but his father's death in 1758 called him to the House of Lords. On 2 Oct. 1760 he was advanced in the peerage, being granted the titles of Viscount Wellesley of Dangan Castle and Earl of Mornington. He was chiefly remarkable for his musical talents, which recommended him to the favour of George III. At nine years old he had learned to play catches on the violin, and was soon afterwards able to take the second part in difficult sonatas. At fourteen he played both the harpsichord and the organ, and when still young began to extemporise fugues. He composed the glees 'Here in cool grot' and 'Come, fairest nymph.' In 1764 the degree of doctor of music was conferred upon him by Trinity College, Dublin.

Mornington died on 22 May 1781 at Kensington, and was buried in Grosvenor Chapel, South Audley Street. He married, on 6 Feb. 1759, Anne, daughter of Arthur Hill (afterwards Hill-Trevor), first viscount Dungannon. She is described as a somewhat cold and severe woman. She died in her ninetieth year on 10 Sept. 1831, surviving to see the glory of her sons, Richard Colley, marquis Wellesley [q. v.]; William Wellesley-Pole, baron Maryborough [q. v.]; Arthur, duke of Wellington [q.v.]; Gerald Valerian (1770-1848), prebendary of Durham; and Henry, first baron Cowley [q. v.l Their sister Anne (1768-1844) married first the Hon. Henry Fitzroy, and secondly Charles Culling Smith. Lord Mornington's portrait is in possession of the Duke of Wellington.

[Gent. Mag. 1781, i. 243; Gilbert's Hist. of City of Dublin, iii. 198; Webb's Compend. of Irish Biography.]


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 42.djvu/172

into Cremona by means of a sewer, in possession of the town. Prince Eugène had discovered the quarters of many of the French officers, who were captured before they had time to dress. O'Mahony, however, seized his pistols, and found means of joining a detachment of his regiment which held the Po gate. This position formed the nucleus of an effective resistance to Eugène's occupation of the town. As O'Mahony obtained reinforcements he spread them along the ramparts, and kept up a galling fusillade on the enemy. This diversion gave the Comte de Revel time to concentrate and reanimate a large number of French troops in the neighbourhood of the Mantua gate, and Eugène, finding himself between two fires, thought it expedient to retire from the city after a vain attempt to bribe O'Mahony to relinquish his occupation of the Po gate. Thus ended the surprise of Cremona, one of the most remarkable events in modern warfare: a garrison of seven thousand men, in a town strongly fortified, surprised in their beds, obliged to march in their shirts, in the obscurity of the night, through streets filled with cavalry, meeting death at every step; scattered in small bodies, without officers to lead them, fighting for ten hours without food or clothes, in the depth of winter, yet recovering gradually every post, and ultimately forcing the enemy to a precipitate retreat. On account of the important service rendered by the Irish major to the French cause, he was selected to carry the despatch to Paris. Louis accorded him an hour's private conference at Versailles, gave him his brevet as colonel, and a pension of a thousand livres, besides a present of a thousand louis-d'or to defray the expenses of his journey. From Versailles O'Mahony proceeded to St. Germains, where he was knighted by the Pretender, James III (, Hist. Militaire, iii. 629;, Mémoires Militaires, ii. 670, ‘Relation de M. de Vaudry’). The gallantry displayed by the Irish in this affair occasioned the once favourite air, ‘The day we beat the Germans at Cremona.’ O'Mahony continued to serve in North Italy under Vendôme; he was appointed governor of Brescello upon its surrender on 28 July 1703, and in January 1704 he took part in Vendôme's successes at San Sebastian and Castel Novo de Bormida. Early in the same year, however, O'Mahony left Italy. Efficient officers were urgently needed in the Spanish service, and Louis XIV consequently recommended the Irish colonel to his nephew, Philip V. A regiment was soon found for him, composed largely of deserters from the British expedition to Cadiz (Journal de Dangeau, ix. 358), and during the remainder of 1704 and the whole of 1705 O'Mahony made himself conspicuous under the Prince de Tilly by his services against the miquelets of the archduke's party. The picturesque details of his being circumvented by Peterborough at Murviedro early in 1706, drawn from Carleton's ‘Memoirs’ and Freind's ‘Relation of Peterborough's Services in Spain,’ are probably wholly fictitious. O'Mahony had at the time but a small force under his control, and was occupied in the transport of wounded soldiers, so that he probably had no alternative but to let Peterborough pass on his way to Valencia. If he had been culpable of such indiscretion as the story implies, he would hardly, as was the case, have been created maréchal-de-camp by Philip V in the course of this same spring. Shortly after his promotion O'Mahony stormed and sacked Enguera, and in June he bravely defended Alicante against Sir John Leake. Though the garrison was small, and the ramparts needed incessant repairs, he would have held out much longer than twenty-seven days had not the Neapolitans under his command forced the surrender by deliberately poisoning the wells. As it was, his troops marched out with the honours of war, and were transported to Cadiz without loss of service. The courtesy of General Gorges permitted a British surgeon to attend to the severe wound which O'Mahony received in the course of the defence. Early in 1707 O'Mahony resumed his command in Valencia, and captured several towns from the allies. He also commanded a brigade of horse at the battle of Almanza, and at the head of his Irish dragoons, according to Bellerive, performed astonishing actions. On 7 July he was again badly wounded at the siege of Denia. Before the close of 1707, however, he was again in command of some six thousand regular troops in Valencia, and he captured the important town of Alcoy on 2 Jan. 1708 (, Historia, xviii. 207). In March 1709 he was appointed to the command of the Spanish forces in Sicily, comprising upwards of three thousand infantry, in addition to his regiment of Irish dragoons. He reached Messina in April, suppressed several Austrian conspiracies, and took such precautions as effectively prevented the English fleet from landing any of the allied forces. In 1710 he returned to Spain, where he was required to command the cavalry of the Gallo-Spanish army. On his return Philip promoted him lieutenant-general, and created him a count of Castile. He subsequently served in the campaign of Ivaris, under the king, and on 20 Aug. 1710 he commanded the Spanish cavalry at


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 42.djvu/178

at St. Helena,’ 1816. In 1819 an attempt to vindicate Lowe's position was made in an anonymous pamphlet (assigned to Theodore Hook), ‘Facts illustrative of the Treatment of Napoleon Bonaparte,’ which was criticised severely in the ‘Edinburgh Review’ (xxxii. 148–70). Later in the year O'Meara published ‘An Exposition of some of the Transactions that have taken place at St. Helena since the appointment of Sir Hudson Lowe as Governor,’ in which he replied to the anonymous pamphlet. His ‘Exposition’ was well received, and in 1822 he produced an expanded version as ‘Napoleon in Exile; or a Voice from St. Helena. The Opinions and Reflections of Napoleon on the most important events of his life and government, in his own words,’ 2 vols. 8vo. This work created a great sensation, and it soon reached a fifth edition, while a French translation appeared in three volumes between 1822 and 1825. Its most valuable feature was an account of Napoleon's outspoken conversations with O'Meara; but the chapters that chiefly rendered it popular were those that pitilessly denounced the treatment meted out to Napoleon by Lowe and the government. Croker in the ‘Quarterly Review’ (October 1822, xxviii. 219–64), and Christopher North in ‘Blackwood's Magazine’ (xiv. 172), in reviewing it, assailed O'Meara furiously; while the ‘Edinburgh’ for June defended him with equal warmth (xxxvii. 164–204).

Lowe did not take any steps to defend his character from O'Meara's embittered attacks till, in Hilary term 1823, he applied for a rule for a criminal information. He was then informed that his case was ‘lost in point of time,’ and he was dissuaded from indicting O'Meara, or bringing an action for damages against him. But Lord Bathurst advised Lowe to draw up a full vindication of his government at St. Helena, and publish it with other documents. This counsel Sir Hudson did not follow, but, instead, wearied the government with applications for redress. It was not until 1853 that the publication of William Forsyth's ‘Captivity of Napoleon at St. Helena, from the Letters and Journals of Sir Hudson Lowe,’ proved that O'Meara had overstated his case, and was largely inspired by bitter personal feeling against Lowe. Besides a few pamphlets, O'Meara's only further publication was some ‘Observations upon the Authenticity of Bourrienne's “Memoirs”’ (1831). He left in manuscript a journal kept at St. Helena, which he bequeathed to Mr. Mailliard of Bordentown, New Jersey, formerly Joseph Bonaparte's private secretary. He died on 3 June 1836 at his house in Edgware Road, of erysipelas in the head, contracted, it was said, by attending one of O'Connell's meetings. Many relics of Napoleon, including a tooth extracted by O'Meara, which fetched seven guineas and a half, were sold at the sale of his effects on 18 and 19 July.

O'Meara was twice married. He became, in 1823, the third husband of Theodosia, daughter of Sir Edward Boughton of Lawford, Warwickshire. She first married, in 1777, Captain John Donellan, who was hanged at Warwick in 1781 for poisoning her brother, Sir Theodosius Edward Allesley Boughton. Her second husband was Sir Egerton Leigh, bart. (d. 1818), by whom she had one son and three daughters. She died in 1830 (Gent. Mag. 1830, pt. ii. p. 179). Kathleen O'Meara [q. v.], the granddaughter of O'Meara, is noticed separately.

 O'MEARA, DERMOD or DERMITIUS (fl. 1610), author and physician. [See .]

O'MEARA, EDMUND (d. 1680), physician. [See .]

O'MEARA, KATHLEEN (1839–1888), biographer and novelist, eldest surviving daughter of Dennis O'Meara of Tipperary, the son of Barry Edward O'Meara [q. v.], was born in Dublin in 1839. She accompanied her parents to Paris at an early age, and it is doubtful whether she afterwards visited her native land. She adopted the literary profession, and, under the pseudonym of 'Grace Ramsay,' became well known as a writer of works of fiction, which were remarkable for purity of tone, delicacy of feeling, and sympathetic language. Her biographical works also won her a high reputation. For many years she was the Paris correspondent of the 'Tablet' newspaper. She died in Paris on 10 Nov. 1888.

Among her works of fiction are: 1. 'A Woman's Trials,' a novel, 3 vols. London, 1867, 8vo. 2. 'Iza's Story,' 3 vols. London, 1869, 8vo, reprinted under the title of 'Iza: a Story of Life in Russian Poland,' London, 1877, 8vo. 3. 'The Battle of Connemara,'


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Baring, Francis Thornhill


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/49

 division is demanded a rising vote is taken. For further information on voting see 46. Under each motion is given the form of putting the question whenever the form is peculiar. 10. Proper Motions to Use to Accomplish Certain Objects. To enable any one to ascertain what motion to use in order to accomplish what is desired, the common motions are arranged in the table below according to the objects to be attained by their use. Immediately after the table is a brief statement of the differences between the motions placed under each object, and of the circumstances under which each should be used. They include all of the Subsidiary Motions [12], which are designed for properly disposing of a question pending before the assembly; and the three motions designed to again bring before the assembly a question that has been acted upon or laid aside temporarily; and the motion designed to bring before another meeting of the assembly a main question which has been voted on in an unusually small or unrepresentative meeting. Motions, as a general rule, require for their adoption only a majority vote — that is, a majority of the votes cast, a quorum being present; but motions to suppress or limit debate, or to prevent the consideration of a question, or, without notice to rescind action previously taken, require a two-thirds vote [48]. The figures


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/178

 Wellesley 'judicious and masterly arrangements in respect of supplies' (Suppl. Desp. xiii. 4). In the invasion of Mysore Wellesley had the direction of the nizam's auxiliary corps, to which the 33rd was attached. It consisted of ten battalions of sepoys, ten thousand miscellaneous horsemen, and twenty-six guns. It formed the left of the army in the action at Malavelly on 27 March. The army arrived before Seringapatam on 5 April, and an attack was made on the enemy's outposts that night by two detachments, of which one, under Wellesley, was repulsed with some loss. He determined 'never to suffer an attack to be made by night upon an enemy who is prepared and strongly posted, and whose posts have not been reconnoitred by daylight' (ib. 18 April). He had no share in the storming of Seringapatam, being in command of the reserve in the trenches; but he was sent into the town next day to restore order, and was appointed governor by Harris on 6 May. General (Sir) David Baird [q.v.], who had led the assault, was much mortified at this choice, but there were good reasons for it (Croker, ii. 103).

On the withdrawal of the army in July the command of all the troops left in Mysore fell to Wellesley, and he also controlled the civil administration of Tippoo's successor. He had written in May: 'I intend to ask to be brought away with the army if any civil servant of the company is to be here, or any person with civil authority who is not under my orders' (ib. 8 May). In August he had to take the field against Dhoondiah Waugh, a freebooter who had gathered a large following. Wellesley drove him across the frontier and dispersed his bands; but they resumed their incursions in April 1800, mustering forty thousand men. Having obtained leave to pursue them into the Mahratta territory, Wellesley crossed the Toombuddra, near Hurryhur, on 26 June, took some forts, and, pushing on with four regiments of cavalry, overtook on 30 July part of Dhoondiah's army, encamped on the Malpoorba. The camp was stormed and the guns and stores taken. After chasing the remainder for several weeks, and following them into the nizam's dominions, Wellesley fell in with them at Conahgull on 10 Sept. Dhoondiah himself was killed, and his bands, reduced by this time to five thousand horse, were scattered. His son fell into the hands of Wellesley, who provided for him till his death (Despatches, 26 Oct. 1825).

In May the governor-general had offered Wellesley the command of an expedition which was to be sent against Batavia, but he declined the offer, as it was not for the public interest that he should leave Mysore just then. In November he was sent to Trincomalee to take command of a force of 3,500 men for a descent upon lle de France (Mauritius) and Bourbon; but on 7 Jan. 1801 he learnt from his brother—now Marquis Wellesley—that this force might have to form part of an expedition to Egypt, in which case a general officer must be placed at the head of it. On the 24th Baird was appointed to it, and its destination was changed to Batavia. Before this news reached Trincomalee Wellesley had set out for Bombay with his troops. He had learnt that despatches from England were on their way to Calcutta, desiring that a force should be sent to Egypt, and, in spite of the remonstrance of the governor of Ceylon, Frederick North (afterwards fifth Earl of Guilford) [q. v.], he decided to anticipate the orders of the governor-general. The latter at first disapproved his action, but was satisfied by the reasons given for it (Desp. 18 Feb. and 23 March; Suppl. Desp. 30 March).

On 6 April the expedition, numbering over six thousand men, left Bombay for the Red Sea under Baird. Wellesley was very sore at his supersession, and complained bitterly of it, with too little allowance for the circumstances (Suppl. Desp. 11 and 20 April and 26 May). He yielded to his brother's wish, in which Baird joined, that he should go as second in command; but he was disabled by illness at the last moment (, p. 103). The Susannah, in which he was to have sailed, was lost with all hands in the Red Sea. He sent Baird a careful memorandum containing such information as he had been able to gather bearing on the intended operations (Desp. 9 April).

In May he returned to Mysore, and for the next year and a half he was busily occupied there, bringing the country into order, making roads and fortifications, forming a good bullock-train, and organising the departments. He became major-general by seniority on 29 April 1802. At the end of that year the peshwah, the titular chief of the Mahratta confederacy, signed the treaty of Bassein, by which he accepted the position of a protected prince, and steps were taken to reinstate him at Poonah, whence Holkar had driven him. Wellesley had already furnished a 'memorandum upon operations in the Mahratta territory' (ib. 6 Sept. 1801), and as soon as he learnt that Madras troops were to be used, he offered his services, pointing out that his pursuit of Dhoondiah had made him well acquainted with the country and people. On 28 Nov. he was appointed a major-general on the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/179

 Wellesley staff of the Madras establishment, and on 8 Feb. 1803 he left Seringapatam with his division.

By the end of the month the Madras army, under General James Stuart, was assembled on the frontier at Hurryhur, and Wellesley, with nine thousand men, was sent forward to Poonah. Learning that the place was to be set on fire on his approach, he made a forced march of forty miles with his cavalry and one battalion, and was in time to save it. He reached it on 20 April, and the peshwah returned to his capital on 13 May.

For some months the attitude of Holkar and Scindiah was doubtful. Wellesley was made on 26 June chief political and military agent in the southern Mahratta states and the Deccan, and did all he could to preserve peace, but in vain. On 7 Aug. war was declared against the two chiefs, and they were attacked by Lake in the north, by Wellesley in the south. The latter had under his orders, besides his own division, some Bombay troops in Gujerat, and the nizam's corps of eight thousand men under Colonel Stevenson, which was near Jaulnah, covering the nizam's dominions. The fort of Ahmednuggur, reckoned one of the strongest forts in India, was taken by Wellesley after a two days' siege (ib. 12 Aug.) Marching northward, he reached Aurungabad on the 29th; but meanwhile Scindiah and the rajah of Berar had slipped past Stevenson and were advancing on Hyderabad. Wellesley moved down the Godavery to intercept them, and they turned back. On 21 Sept. Wellesley and Stevenson met at Budnapoor, and arranged to attack them at Bokerdun on the 24th, Stevenson falling on their right, Wellesley on their left. When the latter reached his camping-ground on the 23rd, he was told that the Mahrattas were within six miles, but were moving off. Sending word to Stevenson, he marched on, and about 1 found himself in presence of their whole army.

It was drawn up behind the Kaitna, with its left near the village of Assye, past which the Juah flows to join the Kaitna. On the right were thirty thousand horsemen, on the left ten thousand infantry trained by European officers, with over a hundred guns. Having left some of his troops to guard his camp, Wellesley had with him only 4,500 men—viz. six battalions and four regiments of cavalry, two battalions and one regiment of cavalry being European. He had seventeen guns and about five thousand Mysore and Mahratta horsemen, not much to be relied on. But 'he fully realised the supreme importance in eastern warfare of promptitude of action and audacity in assuming the offensive, even though the enemy might be enormously superior in number' (, p. 40). He decided to turn their left, seize Assye, and fall upon their flank and rear. To do this he must cross the Kaitna, and he was told there was no ford. But he noticed that, a little above its junction with the Juah, there was a village on the left bank opposite a village on the right bank, and he directed his troops on this point, confident that they would find some means of passage there (, i. 353). He found a ford, and, leaving the irregular horse on the right bank, led the rest of his army across, and formed it between the two streams, whose nullahs covered his flanks. His infantry were in two lines, his cavalry in a third.

The formation was carried out under a heavy fire from the enemy's guns, while their infantry changed front with surprising precision, and placed their right on the Kaitna, their left on the Juah at Assye. 'When I saw that they had got their left to Assye, I altered my plan; and determined to manœuvre by my left and push the enemy upon the nullah, knowing that the village of Assye must fall when the right should be beat' (Desp. 24 Sept.) By a misunderstanding the British right attacked Assye; it was exposed to 'a most terrible cannonade;' the cavalry had to be sent forward to cover its withdrawal, and could not be used afterwards for pursuit. The battle was obstinately contested, but the victory was complete, the enemy leaving nearly all their guns on the field. The loss of the British was a third of their strength, and included 640 Europeans. Wellesley had a horse shot under him and another bayoneted. One of his staff wrote: 'I never saw a man so cool and collected as he was the whole time, though I can assure you till our troops got orders to advance, the fate of the day seemed doubtful' (Suppl. Desp. 3 Oct. and 1 Nov.;, War in India, 1803-6; Asiatic Annual Register, 1803, p. 43; , Decisive Battles of India, pp. 286-95).

Scindiah retreated westward, and Wellesley watched him while Stevenson took Asseerghur. The two divisions then marched into Berar to besiege Gawilghur. Scindiah, having learnt that his best troops had been routed by Lake at Laswarree, opened negotiations with Wellesley, and on 23 Nov. a suspension of hostilities was agreed upon so far as he was concerned. But he did not observe it, and his cavalry joined the troops of the rajah of Berar in resisting Wellesley's advance on Gawilghur. On the 29th a


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/180

 Wellesley battle was fought on a plain in front of the village of Argaum. Some sepoy regiments were disordered by the enemy's artillery fire, and Wellesley wrote: 'If I had not been there, I am convinced we should have lost the day' (Desp. 2 Dec.) But the Mahrattas soon broke and fled, leaving thirty-eight guns on the field, and the victory cost the British under 250 men. Gawilghur was stormed on 15 Dec.; and treaties of peace, negotiated by Wellesley, were signed with the rajah of Berar on the 17th, and with Scindiah on the 30th (Suppl. Desp. iv. 221-287).

Wellesley received the thanks of parliament. A sword of honour was presented to him by the inhabitants of Calcutta, and a service of plate, embossed with 'Assye,' by the officers of his division. He visited Bombay in March and received an address. He was now anxious to return to England: 'I think I have served as long in India as any man ought who can serve anywhere else; and I think that there appears a prospect of service in Europe in which I should be more likely to get forward' (Desp. 8 June 1804). His health had suffered by life in camp, and he was aggrieved that the Duke of York had not confirmed his appointment to the staff of the Madras army. He advised the governor-general also to resign because of the hostility of the directors and the want of support from the ministry (Suppl. Desp. 31 Jan. and 24 Feb.)

The peace turned adrift bands of freebooters who made raids into the Deccan, and in February 1804 Wellesley went in pursuit of one of these bands. He set out on the morning of the 4th with all his cavalry, three battalions of infantry, and four guns, and in thirty hours (including a halt of ten hours) he marched sixty miles. He overtook the band, which was near Perinda, and dispersed it, taking its guns (Desp. 5 Feb.;, ii. 232). This was his last service in the field in India.

He watched with some uneasiness the course of the governor-general, fearing that it would lead to a fresh coalition of the Mahratta princes: 'The system of moderation and conciliation by which, whether it be right or wrong, I made the treaties of peace, and which has been so highly approved and extolled, is now given up' (Suppl. Desp. 13 May). Orders had already been given for hostilities against Holkar, but these fell mainly to Lake. On 24 June Wellesley bade farewell to his division at Poonah, and went to Calcutta. He meant to go home from there, but the disaster to Colonel Monson's force (Desp. 12 Sept.) made it necessary for him to return to Seringapatam in November. He was told that the command of the Bombay army would be offered him, but he wrote: 'Even if I were certain that I should not be employed in England at all, there is no situation in India which would induce me to stay here' (Suppl. Desp. 15 Jan. 1805).

He resigned his civil and military appointments on 24 Feb. 1805. At Madras he was invested with the order of the Bath (K.C.B.), which had been conferred on him on 1 Sept. 1804; he received addresses from the officers of his late division, from those of the 33rd regiment, and from the native inhabitants of Seringapatam, and he was entertained by the civil and military officers of the presidency. In the middle of March Sir Arthur sailed for England in the Trident, and arrived in the Downs on 10 Sept. His eight years' service in India had been excellent training for the varied business he was afterwards to be engaged in. In addition to the ordinary duties of command, he had been engineer, commissariat and store officer, as well as civil administrator and diplomatist. Always ready to accept new functions and clinging to those he already had, more than fifty thousand soldiers were under his orders in different parts of southern India at the beginning of 1804.

It must have been within two or three days of his landing that the only meeting between Wellesley and Nelson took place by chance at the colonial office, for Nelson left England on 13 Sept. for the last time (, ii. 233). Lord Castlereagh, who was then secretary of state for war and the colonies, had been president of the board of control, and Wellesley made it his first business to explain and justify his brother's Indian policy to him and to Pitt. The latter was struck with his reticence about his own actions, and a few days before his death he told Lord Wellesley: 'I never met any military officer with whom it was so satisfactory to converse. He states every difficulty before he undertakes any service, but none after he has undertaken it' (, Pitt, iv. 375;, iii. 126). Wellesley was appointed to the staff of the Kent district on 30 Oct., and a month afterwards he was given command of a brigade in the expedition to Hanover under Lord Cathcart [see Cathcart, William Schaw (DNB00), tenth ]. The victory of Austerlitz caused the withdrawal of this expedition, and on 25 Feb. 1806 Wellesley was appointed to a brigade at Hastings. On 30 Jan. he had succeeded Lord


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/50

 and letters on the left in the list below correspond to similar figures and letters in the statement of differences further on. The figures to the right in the list refer to the sections where the motions are fully treated.

The Common Motions Classified According to Their Objects. (1) To Modify or Amend.

 * (a) Amend 33

 * (b) Commit or Refer 32

(2) To Defer Action.

 * (a) Postpone to a Certain Time 31

 * (b) Make a Special Order (2/3 Vote) 20

 * (c) Lay on the Table 28

(3) To Suppress or Limit Debate (2/3 Vote).

 * (a) Previous Question (to close debate now) (2/3 Vote) 29

 * (b) Limit Debate (2/3 Vote) 30

(4) To Suppress the Question.

 * (a) Objection to Its Consideration (2/3 Vote) 23

 * (b) Previous Question and Reject Question 29

 * (c) Postpone Indefinitely 34

 * (d) Lay on the Table 28

(5) To Consider a Question a Second Time.

 * (a) Take from the Table 35

 * (b) Reconsider 36

 * (c) Rescind 37

(6) To Prevent Final Action on a Question in an Unusually Small or Unrepresentative Meeting.

 * (a) Reconsider and have Entered on the Minutes 36

(1) To Modify or Amend. (a) When a resolution or motion is not worded properly, or requires any modification to meet the


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Belper, Lord


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/51

of the assembly, if the changes required can be made in the assembly, the proper motion to make is to amend by "inserting," or "adding," or by "striking out," or by "striking out and inserting," or by "substituting" one or more paragraphs for those in the resolution. (b) But if much time will be required, or if the changes required are numerous, or if additional information is required to enable the assembly to act intelligently, then it is usually better to refer the question to a committee. (2) To Defer Action. (a) If it is desired to put off the further consideration of a question to a certain hour, so that when that time arrives, as soon as the pending business is disposed of, it shall have the right of consideration over all questions except special orders and a reconsideration, then the proper motion to make is, to postpone to that certain time. This is also the proper motion to make if it is desired to defer action simply to another day. As the motion if adopted cannot interrupt the pending question when the appointed time arrives, nor can it suspend any rule, it requires only a majority vote for its adoption. A question postponed to a certain time cannot be taken up before the appointed time except by suspending the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote, (b) If it is desired to appoint for the consideration of a question a certain time when it may interrupt any pending question except one relating to


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/174

 Welles to parliament was on 16 June 1311 (Parl. Writs, ii. 1597), in which year he died.

His wife Joan, who was jointly seised with him of the manor of Wyberton, survived him. His estates at the time of his death are enumerated in ‘Calendarium Inquisitionum post mortem,’ i. 247–8. Save a small property in Northamptonshire, they were all in Lincolnshire, including the whole or parts of seventeen manors, five and a half knights' fees, and five advowsons.

His eldest son, Robert, succeeded to the lands. He had two younger sons, Adam and John, who in 1319 were declared to have equal rights of succession to Wyberton with their elder brother. Robert was never summoned to parliament, and died in 1320 without issue from his wife. Adam (d. 1345) then succeeded, and was summoned as a baron from 1332 to 1343. His direct descendants in the male line continued to hold the barony until the latter part of the fifteenth century [see, sixth ].

[Parliamentary Writs, vols. i. and ii.; Calendarium Rotulorum Cartarum; Rymer's Fœdera, vols. i. and ii.; Calendars of Patent and Close Rolls; Rolls of Parliament; Memoranda de Parliamento, 1305 (Rolls Ser.); Nicolas's Siege of Carlaverock, pp. 32, 206–7; Dugdale's Baronage, ii. 10–11.]  WELLES, LIONEL, LEO, or LYON, sixth (1405?–1461), soldier, born about 1405, was son of Eudo de Welles by Maud, daughter of Ralph, lord Greystock. From Adam de Welles, first baron Welles [q. v.], descended John de Welles, fifth baron, summoned to parliament as baron from 20 Jan. 1376 to 26 Feb. 1421, and distinguished in the French and Scottish wars. He died in 1421, leaving by his second wife, Margaret (or Eleanor), daughter of John, lord Mowbray, the son Eudo above-mentioned, who predeceased him. Eudo's younger son, William, occasionally acted as deputy to his brother when lord lieutenant of Ireland, of which he was in 1465 lord chancellor (, Lord Chancellors of Ireland).

Lionel, the eldest son, succeeded his grandfather in 1421, was knighted with Henry VI at Leicester by the Duke of Bedford on 19 May 1426, and went with the young king to France in 1430. He was summoned to parliament as sixth Baron Welles from 25 Feb. 1432 to 30 July 1460. In 1434 he became a privy councillor. He was sent to relieve Calais in 1436, when the town was feebly besieged by the Burgundians. He served as lord lieutenant of Ireland from about 1438, and was afterwards specially exempted from acts of resumption, because of the sums owed him by the crown in respect of his expenditure. He was a friend—indeed a connection—of the king, and constantly at court. In 1450 he was appointed a trier of petitions for Gascony and the parts beyond the seas. In 1454 he was stated to be beyond the sea by the king's commandment. He was probably then at Calais, where he had been sent in 1451, with Lord Rivers; he remained in command as lieutenant of the Duke of Somerset until 20 April 1456, when Warwick secured possession. He was elected K.G. before 13 May 1457. As a Lancastrian he took the oath of allegiance at Coventry in 1459. He joined Margaret of Anjou on her march south, was at the second battle of St. Albans on 7 Feb. 1460–1, and was killed at Towton on 29 March, and attainted in the parliament which followed. He was buried in Waterton church, Methley, Yorkshire.

He married, first, about 1426, Joan (or Cecilia), only daughter of Sir Robert Waterton of Waterton and Methley, and had issue a son, Richard (see below), and four daughters; and, secondly, between 27 May 1444 and 31 Aug. 1447, Margaret, daughter of Sir John Beauchamp of Bletsoe; she was widow of Sir Oliver St. John and of John Beaufort, duke of Somerset, by whom she had had a daughter, the Lady Margaret Beaufort [q. v.]; by her Welles had a son John (see below).

, seventh (1431–1470), son of Lionel, sixth baron, by his first wife, married Joane, daughter of Robert, lord Willoughby de Eresby, and was summoned in her right as Lord Willoughby from 26 May 1455 to 28 Feb. 1466. His first wife died before 1460, and he married secondly Margaret, daughter of Sir James Strangways and widow of John Ingleby, who took the veil in 1475. He was a Lancastrian and present at the second battle of St. Albans (7 Feb. 1460–1), but soon managed to make his peace with Edward, who pardoned him at Gloucester, in the first year of his reign; and so he soon got his family property again, and in 1468 his honours. Doubtless his family connection with the Nevilles helped him. His son Robert, however, took part in Warwick's plots, and in March 1470 attacked the house of Sir Thomas Borough, a knight of the king's body, spoiled it, and drove its owner away. Edward now summoned Lord Welles (the father) and his brother-in-law, Sir Thomas Dymock, to London. At first Welles refused to go on the plea of illness; but afterwards went, took sanctuary at Westminster, and then rashly


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/52

 adjournment or recess, or a question of privilege or a specified order that was made before it was, then the proper course is to move "that the question be made a special order for," etc., specifying the day or hour. As this motion, if adopted, suspends all rules that interfere with the consideration of the question at the appointed time, it requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption. A special order cannot be considered before the appointed time except by suspending the rules, which requires a two-hirds vote, (c) If, however, it is desired to lay the question aside temporarily with the right to take it up at any moment when business of this class, or unfinished or new business, is in order and no other question is before the assembly, the proper motion to use is to lay the question on the table. When laid upon the table a majority vote may take it up at the same or the next session, as described in 35.

(3) To Suppress Debate. (a) If it is desired to close debate now and bring the assembly at once to a vote on the pending question, or questions, the proper course is to move, or demand, or call for, the previous question on the motions upon which it is desired to close debate. The motion, or demand, for the previous question should always specify the motions upon which it is desired to order the previous question. If no motions are specified, the previous question applies only


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/53

 to the immediately pending question. It requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption. After it has been adopted, privileged and incidental motions may be made, or the pending questions may be laid on the table, but no other subsidiary motion can be made nor is any debate allowed. If it is lost the debate is resumed. (b) If it is desired to limit the number or length of speeches, or the time allowed for debate, the proper course is to move that the speeches or debate be limited as desired, or that the debate be closed and the vote be taken at a specified time. These motions to limit or close debate require a two-thirds vote for their adoption, and are in order, like the previous question, when any debatable question is immediately pending. (4) To Suppress the Question. A legitimate question cannot be suppressed in a deliberative assembly without free debate, except by a two-thirds vote. If two-thirds of the assembly are opposed to the consideration of the question then it can be suppressed by the following methods: (a) If it is desired to prevent any consideration of the question, the proper course to pursue is to object to its consideration before it has been discussed or any other motion stated, and, therefore, it may interrupt a member who has the floor before the debate has begun. It requires no second. On the question of consideration there must be a two-thirds negative vote to


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/54

 prevent the consideration. (b) After the question has been considered the proper way to immediately suppress it is to close debate by ordering the previous question, which requires a two-thirds vote, and then to vote down the question. (c) Another method of suppressing a question is to postpone it indefinitely (equivalent to rejecting it), which, however, being debatable and opening the main question to debate, is only of service in giving another opportunity to defeat the resolution should this one fail. For, if the motion to postpone indefinitely is adopted, the main question is dead for that session, and if it is lost, the main question is still pending and its enemies have another opportunity to kill it. When the motion to postpone indefinitely is pending and immediate action is desired, it is necessary to move the previous question as in case (b) above. (d) A fourth method frequently used for suppressing a question is to lay it on the table, though this is an unfair use of the motion, except in bodies like Congress where the majority must have the power to suppress any motion immediately, as otherwise they could not transact business. But in ordinary societies, where the pressure of business is not so great, it is better policy for the majority to be fair and courteous to the minority and use the proper motions for suppressing a question without allowing full debate, all of which require a two-thirds vote. Unless the enemies


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/55

 of a motion have a large majority, laying it on the table is not a safe way of suppressing it, because its friends, by watching their opportunity, may find themselves in a majority and take it from the table and adopt it, as shown in the next paragraph. (5) To Consider a Question a Second Time. (a) When a question has not been voted on, but has been laid on the table, a majority may take it from the table and consider it at any time when no other question is before the assembly and when business of that class, or unfinished or new business, is in order during the same session; or at the next session in ordinary societies having regular meetings as often as quarterly. (b) If a motion has been adopted, or rejected, or postponed indefinitely, and afterwards one or more members have changed their views from the prevailing to the losing side, and it is thought that by further discussion the assembly may modify or reverse its action, the proper course is for one who voted with the prevailing side to move to reconsider the vote on the question. This can be done on the day the vote to be reconsidered is taken, or on the next succeeding day of the same session, (c) If a main motion, including questions of privilege and orders of the day, has been adopted or rejected or postponed indefinitely, and no one is both able and willing to move to reconsider the vote, the question can be brought up again


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Benefacta, Richard


text:
User talk:69.20.153.114

Please do not add nonsense to Wikisource; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. George Orwell III (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:69.20.153.114


text:
User talk:89.238.154.112

Welcome

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

 * Help pages
 * Style Guide
 * Inclusion policy

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

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question. Again, welcome! -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC) A contribution from this account or ip address, which appeared to be a test edit, was removed or reverted. Please use the sandbox for this purpose. The community portal has information on contributing to this library.

title: User talk:89.238.154.112