text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/278

 On 22 July following Wentworth was created Baron Wentworth, and on 10 Dec. he exchanged his baronage for a viscountcy, with the same title. On 25 Dec. he was appointed president of the council of the north. What is usually styled his apostasy was thus accomplished before the end of the year. That there was no real or pretended change of principle is obvious. Wentworth had sought to limit the powers of royalty, as had been done in the petition of right, for the sake of the king as well as of his subjects, but he had never shown any desire to transfer the control of the executive from the king to parliament, or to favour the growth of puritanism in the church. It was, however, precisely these two points on which the House of Commons had put forward claims at the close of the session of 1628, and were likely to put forward claims in the coming session of 1629. Yet there could be no doubt that a change of position would bring with it a change of view. Few men, and least of all men of Wentworth's strength of will, could be expected to see things in the same way after ceasing to be critics and becoming actors. As wielding the executive powers of the crown in the north, Wentworth would soon come to regard the crown as the sole upholder of the rights of the state, and all who opposed it as engaged in the destructive work of weakening the authority without which the state would dissolve into atoms. In the speech which he delivered on 30 Dec. to the council of the north, he set forth his conception of the unity of interest which ought to prevail between king and people in terms which would have satisfied Bacon: ‘To the joint individual well-being of sovereignty and subjection,’ he said, ‘do I here vow all my cares and diligences through the whole course of my ministry. I confess I am not ignorant how some distempered minds have of late very often endeavoured to divide the considerations of the two, as if their end were distinct, not the same—nay, in opposition; a monstrous, a prodigious birth of a licentious conception, for so we would become all head or all members. … Princes are to be the indulgent nursing fathers to their people; their modest liberties, their sober rights ought to be precious in their eyes, the branches of their government to be for shadow, for habitation, the comfort of life. [The people] repose safe and still under the protection of their sceptres. Subjects, on the other side, ought, with solicitous eyes of jealousy, to watch over the prerogatives of a crown. The authority of a king is the keystone which closeth up the arch of order and government, which contains each part in due relation to the whole, and which once shaken, infirm'd, all the frame falls together into a confused heap of foundation and battlement of strength and beauty’ (printed from Tanner MSS. lxxii. 300 in Academy, 5 June 1875). Wentworth's conception of parliaments, in short, was rather that which prevails in Germany at the present day than that which was already growing in England in the minds of the parliamentary leaders.

Whether Wentworth took any part in the debates of the House of Lords in the short session of 1629 we have no means of knowing. But it may be safely conjectured that he regarded the House of Commons as wholly in the wrong in the events which led to the dissolution. Early in September he obtained knowledge of a paper written by Sir Robert Dudley in 1614 recommending James to erect a military despotism in England. He at once took it to Charles, who on 10 Nov. 1629 made him a privy councillor as a reward for his loyalty, as it was suspected that the paper was being circulated by the leaders of the opposition as indicating Charles's true intentions. In November 1630 he spoke strongly in the Star-chamber against Alexander Leighton (1568–1649) [q. v.], and it is said that a common feeling against aggressive puritanism drew him on that occasion to contract an intimate friendship with Laud, which continued to his death (, Epitome, 1646). On Wentworth's action in the privy council in these years we have no evidence, and it is certain that he had not, at this time, the predominant influence which has been subsequently attributed to him.

In October 1631 Wentworth lost his second wife, the mother of his children. At York there was a strong feeling of sympathy with the lord president in his trouble. ‘The whole city’ had ‘a face of mourning; never any woman so magnified and lamented even of those who never saw her face’ (Fairfax Correspondence, ii. 237). In October 1632 Wentworth married his third wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Godfrey and granddaughter of Francis Rodes [q. v.]

In governing the north, Wentworth's main difficulties arose from the spirit of independence shown by the gentry and nobility in a district in which the idea of the predominance of the state had made less progress than in the more thickly populated and wealthier south. His first conflict was with Henry Bellasys, the son of Lord Fauconberg, who, coming into the hall in which Wentworth was sitting with the council, neglected to make the customary reverence, and kept his head covered when the lord


text:
Page:Michelson1881.djvu/2

 which have thus far been obtained. In the same letter it was also stated that the reason why such measurements could not be made at the earth's surface was that we have thus far no method for measuring the velocity of light which does not involve the necessity of returning the light over its path, whereby it would lose nearly as much as was gained in going.

The difference depending on the square of the ratio of the two velocities, according to Maxwell, is far too small to measure.

The following is intended to show that, with a wave-length of yellow light as a standard, the quantity — if it exists — is easily measurable.

Using the same notation as before we have $$T=\tfrac{D}{V-v}$$ and $$T_{1}=\tfrac{D}{V+v}$$. The whole time occupied therefore in going and returning $$T+T_{1}=2D\tfrac{V}{V^{2}-v^{2}}$$. If, however, the light had traveled in a direction at right angles to the earth's motion it would be entirely unaffected and the time of going and returning would be, therefore, $$2\tfrac{D}{V}=2T_{0}$$. The difference between the times T+T1 and 2T0 is

or nearly $$2T_{0}\tfrac{v^{2}}{V^{2}}$$. In the time $$\tau$$ the light would travel a distance $$V\tau=2VT_{0}\tfrac{v^{2}}{V^{2}}=2D\tfrac{v^{2}}{V^{2}}$$.

That is, the actual distance the light travels in the first case is greater than in the second, by the quantity $$2D\tfrac{v^{2}}{V^{2}}$$.

Considering only the velocity of the earth in its orbit, the ratio $$\tfrac{v}{V}=\tfrac{1}{10\ 000}$$ approximately, and $$\tfrac{v^{2}}{V^{2}}=\tfrac{1}{100\ 000\ 000}$$. If D = 1200 millimeters, or in wave-lengths of yellow light, 2 000 000, then in terms of the same unit, $$2D\tfrac{v^{2}}{V^{2}}=\tfrac{4}{100}$$.

If, therefore, an apparatus is so constructed as to permit two pencils of light, which have traveled over paths at right angles to each other, to interfere, the pencil which has traveled in the direction of the earth's motion, will in reality travel $$\tfrac{4}{100}$$ of a wave-length farther than it would have done, were the earth at rest. The other pencil being at right angles to the motion would not be affected.

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

title: Page:Michelson1881.djvu/2


text:
Page:Michelson1881.djvu/3

 If, now, the apparatus be revolved through 90° so that the second pencil is brought into the direction of the earth's motion, its path will have lengthened $$\tfrac{4}{100}$$ wave-lengths. The total change in the position of the interference bands would be $$\tfrac{8}{100}$$ of the distance between the bands, a quantity easily measurable.

The conditions for producing interference of two pencils of light which had traversed paths at right angles to each other were realized in the following simple manner.

Light from a lamp a, fig. 1, passed through the plane parallel glass plate b, part going to the mirror c, and part being reflected to the mirror d. The mirrors c and d were of plane glass, and silvered on the front surface. From these the light was reflected to b, where the one was reflected and the other refracted, the two coinciding along be.

The distance bc being made equal to bd, and a plate of glass g being interposed in the path of the ray bc, to compensate for the thickness of the glass b, which is traversed by the ray bd, the two rays will have traveled over equal paths and are in condition to interfere.

The instrument is represented in plan by fig. 2, and in perspective by fig. 3. The same letters refer to the same parts in the two figures.

The source of light, a small lantern provided with a lens, the flame being in the focus, is represented at a. b and g are the two plane glasses, both being cut from the same piece; d and c are the silvered glass mirrors; m is a micrometer screw which moves the plate b in the direction be. The telescope e, for observing the interference bands, is provided with a micrometer eyepiece. w is a counterpoise.

In the experiments the arms, bd, bc, were covered by long paper boxes, not represented in the figures, to guard against changes in temperature. They were supported at the outer ends by the pins k, I, and at the other by the circular plate o. The adjustments were effected as follows:

The mirrors c and d were moved up as close as possible to the plate b, and by means of the screw m the distances between a point on the surface of b and the two mirrors were made approximately equal by a pair of compasses. The lamp being

title: Page:Michelson1881.djvu/3


text:
Page:Michelson1881.djvu/4

 lit, a small hole made in a screen placed before it served as a point of light; and the plate b, which was adjustable in two planes, was moved about till the two images of the point of light, which were reflected by the mirrors, coincided. Then a sodium flame placed at a produced at once the interference bands. These could then be altered in width, position, or direction, by a slight movement of the plate b, and when they were of convenient width and of maximum sharpness, the sodium flame was removed and the lamp again substituted. The screw m was then slowly turned till the bands reappeared. They were then of course colored, except the central band, which was nearly black. The observing telescope had to be focussed on the surface of the mirror d, where the fringes were most distinct The whole apparatus, including the lamp and the telescope, was movable about a vertical axis.

It will be observed that this apparatus can very easily be

title: Page:Michelson1881.djvu/4


text:
Page:Michelson1881.djvu/5

 made to serve as an "interferential refractor," and has the two important advantages of small cost, and wide separation of the two pencils.

The apparatus as above described was constructed by Schmidt and Hænsch of Berlin. It was placed on a stone pier in the Physical Institute, Berlin. The first observation showed, however, that owing to the extreme sensitiveness of the instrument to vibrations, the work could not be carried on during the day. The experiment was next tried at night. When the mirrors were placed half-way on the arms the fringes were visible, but their position could not be measured till after twelve o'clock, and then only at intervals. When the mirrors were moved out to the ends of the arms, the fringes were only occasionally visible.

It thus appeared that the experiments could not be performed in Berlin, and the apparatus was accordingly removed to the Astrophysicalisches Observatorium in Potsdam. Even here the ordinary stone piers did not suffice, and the apparatus was again transferred, this time to a cellar whose circular walls formed the foundation for the pier of the equatorial.

Here, the fringes under ordinary circumstances were sufficiently quiet to measure, but so extraordinarily sensitive was the instrument that the stamping of the pavement, about 100 meters from the observatory, made the fringes disappear entirely!

If this was the case with the instrument constructed with a view to avoid sensitiveness, what may we not expect from one made as sensitive as possible!

At this time of the year, early in April, the earth's motion in its orbit coincides roughly in longitude with the estimated direction of the motion of the solar system — namely, toward the constellation Hercules. The direction of this motion is inclined at an angle of about +26° to the plane of the equator,

title: Page:Michelson1881.djvu/5


text:
Page:Michelson1881.djvu/6

 and at this time of the year the tangent of the earth's motion in its orbit makes an angle of $$-23\tfrac{1}{2}$$° with the plane of the equator; hence we may say the resultant would lie within 25° of the equator.

The nearer the two components are in magnitude to each other, the more nearly would their resultant coincide with the plane of the equator.

In this case, if the apparatus be so placed that the arms point north and east at noon, the arm pointing east would coincide with the resultant motion, and the other would be at right angles. Therefore, if at this time the apparatus be rotated 90°, the displacement of the fringes should be twice $$\tfrac{8}{100}$$ or 0.16 of the distance between the fringes.

If, on the other hand, the proper motion of the sun is small compared to the earth's motion, the displacement should be $$\tfrac{6}{10}$$ of .08 or 0.048. Taking the mean of these two numbers as the most probable, we may say that the displacement to be looked for is not far from one-tenth the distance between the fringes.

The principal difficulty which was to be feared in making these experiments, was that arising from changes of temperature of the two arms of the instrument. These being of brass whose coefficient of expansion is 0.000019 and having a length of about 1000 mm. or 1 700 000 wave-lengths, if one arm should have a temperature only one one-hundredth of a degree higher than the other, the fringes would thereby experience a displacement three times as great as that which would result from the rotation. On the other hand, since the changes of temperature are independent of the direction of the arms, if these changes were not too great their effect could be eliminated.

It was found, however, that the displacement on account of bending of the arms during rotation was so considerable that the instrument had to be returned to the maker, with instructions to make it revolve as easily as possible. It will be seen from the tables, that notwithstanding this precaution a large displacement was observed in one particular direction. That this was due entirely to the support was proved by turning the latter through 90°, when the direction in which the displacement appeared was also changed 90°.

On account of the sensitiveness of the instrument to vibration, the micrometer screw of the observing telescope could not be employed, and a scale ruled on glass was substituted. The distance between the fringes covered three scale divisions, and the position of the center of the dark fringe was estimated to fourths of a division, so that the separate estimates were correct to within $$\tfrac{1}{12}$$.

It frequently occurred that from some slight cause (among

title: Page:Michelson1881.djvu/6


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/77

ANDIDLY, it seemed little worthy of all this searching, A few broken ends of village, with no particular street, but a succession of open places heaped with logs and fagots; a couple of tilted crosses, a shrine to our Lady of all Graces on the summit of a little hill; and all this, upon a rattling highland river, in the corner of a naked valley. What went ye out for to see? thought I to myself. But the place had a life of its own. I found a board commemorating the liberalities of Cheylard for the past year, hung up, like a banner, in the diminutive and tottering church. In 1877, it appeared, the inhabitants subscribed forty-eight francs ten centimes for the "Work of the Propagation of the Faith." Some of this, I could not help hoping, would be applied to my native land. Cheylard scrapes together halfpence for the darkened souls in Edinburgh;


text:
Page:Michelson1881.djvu/7

 others the springing of the tin lantern by heating) the fringes would suddenly change their position, in which case the series of observations was rejected and a new series begun.

In making the adjustment before the third series of observations, the direction in which the fringes moved, on moving the glass plate b, was reversed, so that the displacement in the third and fourth series are to be taken with the opposite sign.

At the end of each series the support was turned 90°, and the axis was carefully adjusted to the vertical by means of the foot-screws and a spirit level.

title: Page:Michelson1881.djvu/7


text:
Page:Michelson1881.djvu/8

 The heading of the columns in the table gives the direction toward which the telescope pointed.

The footing of the erroneous column is marked x, and in the calculations the mean of the two adjacent footings is substituted.

The numbers in the columns are the positions of the center of the dark fringe in twelfths of the distance between the fringes.

In the first two series, when the footings of the columns N. and S. exceed those of columns E. and W., the excess is called positive. The excess of the footings of N.E., S.W., over those of N.W., S.E., are also called positive. In the third and fourth series this is reversed.

The numbers marked "excess" are the sums of ten observations. Dividing therefore by 10, to obtain the mean, and also by 12 (since the numbers are twelfths of the distance between the fringes), we find for

The displacement is, therefore,

The former is too small to be considered as showing a displacement due to the simple change in direction, and the latter should have been zero.

The numbers are simply outstanding errors of experiment. It is, in fact, to be seen from the footings of the columns, that the numbers increase (or decrease) with more or less regularity from left to right.

This gradual change, which should not in the least affect the periodic variation for which we are searching, would of itself necessitate an outstanding error, simply because the sum of the two columns farther to the left must be less (or greater) than the sum of those farther to the right.

This view is amply confirmed by the fact that where the excess is positive for the column N.S., it is also positive for N.E., S.W., and where negative, negative. If, therefore, we can eliminate this gradual change, we may expect a much smaller error. This is most readily accomplished as follows:

Adding together all the footings of the four series, the third and fourth with negative sign, we obtain

title: Page:Michelson1881.djvu/8


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/279

 president left the room. Bellasys was sent before the privy council at Westminster, and, after a month's imprisonment, agreed on 6 May 1631 to make due submission both there and at York (, ii. 88). More important was the struggle with Sir David Foulis [q. v.], a Scot who had received a grant of lands from James I, and who, after assailing Wentworth's personal honesty, urged the sheriff of the county to refuse obedience to the president's summons to York, on the ground that the council of the north had been erected by the king's commission, and not by act of parliament (ib. ii. 205). Wentworth stood forth in defence of the prerogative. In a letter written to Carlisle on 24 Sept. 1632 (Forster MSS. in the South Kensington Museum) he took his stand on the necessity of preventing subjects from imposing conditions on the king, in his eyes the cause of offence in the last parliament after the acceptance of the petition of right. When Foulis attempted to bargain with Charles by offering to gain him the affections of the gentry if he were himself taken into favour, Wentworth's wrath blazed higher. His majesty, he said, would but gain by making Foulis an example of his justice. Ordinary men were not to be allowed to bargain with the king (Wentworth to Carlisle, 24 Oct., in the Preface to Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1631–3). To Wentworth the king was the depository of the idea of the state, called on to execute justice without fear of persons or parties. In the end Foulis was punished with fine and imprisonment by a sentence in the Star-chamber. Lord Eure, too, resisted an order in chancery in his house at Malton till Wentworth ordered up guns from Scarborough Castle, and had them fired at his house in Malton. Sir Thomas Gower, having insulted the king's attorney at York, took refuge in London, and, on the plea that he was out of the jurisdiction of the northern circuit, drove off Wentworth's officers who attempted to arrest him in Holborn. Charles took Wentworth's part, and on 21 March 1633 a new set of instructions were issued (, xix. 410), giving the fullest possible powers to the council of the north.

By this time Wentworth, though still continuing president and executing his office by deputy, had been transferred to a wider sphere of action. On 12 Jan. 1632 he had been appointed lord deputy of Ireland, though he did not enter Dublin till 23 July 1633. His first difficulty was likely to arise, not from the native Irish, but from the English immigrants or their descendants, who occupied all posts in Dublin, were seated at the council table, and had the ear of influential personages at the court of Charles himself. Accordingly while still in England Wentworth had drawn up proposals securing the Irish revenue against encroachments, and protecting himself against the granting of writs by the king behind his back, and these proposals were on 22 Feb. 1632, by Charles's order, registered in the council book, that they might not be disregarded (Strafford Letters, i. 65). His own government was to be, according to the watchword frequently found in his correspondence with Laud, ‘thorough’—that is to say, founded on a complete disregard of private interests, with a view to the establishment, for the good of the whole community, of the royal power as the embodiment of the state. On his arrival in Dublin he found that the contribution which had been granted by an informal assembly in return for the grant by Charles of certain ‘graces’ was coming to an end, but he obtained its renewal for a year by mingling hopes of a parliament with hints that he would otherwise be compelled to exact the money by force. Being thus enabled to pay his soldiers, he reduced his little army to discipline. It was to the army that he looked to secure his power in the last resort; but he hoped rather to build it up on the basis of good government, fostering the material prosperity of the country. The piracy which was rife in St. George's Channel was put down. Schemes were entertained for opening commerce with Spain. The growth of flax was introduced and industry of every kind encouraged, except that, with the view of rendering Ireland dependent on England, the exportation of salt was to be a monopoly in the hands of the government, and any attempt to manufacture woollen cloth was to be discouraged. Wentworth's aim was in the end to make Irishmen as prosperous as Englishmen were, but at the same time to make them as like Englishmen as possible, in order that they might be equally loyal to the English crown.

Wentworth was thus brought to seek the reform of the protestant church in Ireland, which was far from being in a state to win the hearts of Irishmen. The ecclesiastical courts were mere machines for extortion. Scarcely a minister was capable of addressing an Irishman in his own tongue. Churches were in ruins, the clergy impoverished and ignorant, and their revenues often in the hands of the laity. The Earl of Cork, for instance, had secured the revenues of the bishopric of Lismore, worth 1,000l. a year, by the annual payment of 20l. Wentworth ordered a suit


text:
Page:Michelson1881.djvu/9

 or dividing by 20×12 to obtain the means in terms of the distance between the fringes,

If x is the number of the column counting from the right and y the corresponding footing, then the method of least squares gives as the equation of the straight line which passes nearest the points x, y —

y = 9.25x + 64.5

If, now, we construct a curve with ordinates equal to the difference of the values of y found from the equation, and the actual value of y, it will represent the displacements observed, freed from the error in question.

These ordinates are:

The small displacements -0.004 and -0.015 are simply errors of experiment.

The results obtained are, however, more strikingly shown by constructing the actual curve together with the curve that should have been found if the theory had been correct. This is shown in fig. 4.

The dotted curve is drawn on the supposition that the displacement to be expected is one-tenth of the distance between the fringes, but if this displacement were only $$\tfrac{1}{100}$$, the broken line would still coincide more nearly with the straight line than with the curve.

The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous.

This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of the phenomenon of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.

title: Page:Michelson1881.djvu/9


text:
Page:Michelson1881.djvu/10

 It may not be out of place to add an extract from an article published in the Philosophical Magazine by Stokes in 1846.

"All these results would follow immediately from the theory of aberration which I proposed in the July number of this magazine: nor have I been able to obtain any result admitting of being compared with experiment, which would be different according to which theory we adopted. This affords a curious instance of two totally different theories running parallel to each other in the explanation of phenomena. I do not suppose that many would be disposed to maintain Fresnel's theory, when it is shown that it may be dispensed with, inasmuch as we would not be disposed to believe, without good evidence, that the ether moved quite freely through the solid mass of the earth. Still it would have been satisfactory, if it had been possible to have put the two theories to the test of some decisive experiment."

In conclusion, I take this opportunity to thank Mr. A. Graham Bell, who has provided the means for carrying out this work, and Professor Vogel, the Director of the Astrophysicalisches Observatorium, for his courtesy in placing the resources of his laboratory at my disposal.

title: Page:Michelson1881.djvu/10


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/280

 to be commenced against him in the castle chamber, and compelled him to disgorge his prey. The same nobleman had built a gorgeous tomb for his deceased wife in St. Patrick's Cathedral, in the place on which the high altar had once stood. Wentworth compelled him to remove it to another part of the church. Some kind of decency he enforced in the ceremonial of the church, though far short of that which Laud was enforcing in England. In November 1634 he forced the Irish convocation to substitute the articles of the church of England for the Calvinistic ones drawn up by Ussher which they had previously adopted. He also set himself to suppress the puritan practices of the Ulster settlers, most of whom were Scots. But his main effort was kept for the recovery of the property of the church as an inducement to men of zeal and ability in England to accept preferment in Ireland.

To secure a supply of money which would enable him to carry out his objects till the growth of prosperity should give him a constant revenue, Wentworth recommended Charles to allow him to summon parliament. An Irish parliament did not, like an English parliament, represent a tolerably united nation. It had been so manipulated as to contain a large minority of representatives of English and Scottish immigrants, another large minority representing the Roman catholics for the most part of Anglo-Norman descent, besides a small number of officials who could form a majority by throwing their weight to one side or the other. Such a body easily lent itself to management, and Wentworth intended it to be managed. Parliament met on 14 July 1634. In his opening speech the lord deputy frankly declared that the king looked to the members to pay off his debts, and to fill up the deficit of 20,000l. a year. It was beneath his master's dignity, he said, to ‘come at every year's end, with his hat in his hand, to entreat that you would be pleased to preserve yourselves.’ If they would trust the king by voting supplies in this session, there should be another session for redress of grievances. Let them not run into factions dividing between catholic and protestant, English and Irish; above all, let them make no division between king and people. ‘Most certain is it that their well-being is individually one and the same, their interests woven up together with so tender and close threads as cannot be pulled asunder without a rent in the commonwealth’ (Strafford Letters, i. 286). A test division showed that the protestant members, reinforced by the officials, were in a majority of eight. On 18 July six subsidies were voted, and on 2 Aug. parliament was prorogued. On 20 Sept. Wentworth asked the king for an earldom as a sign of his support in the struggle on which he was embarked, but met with a denial from Charles, who liked to be the originator of his own favours (ib. i. 301, 331).

The second session of parliament commenced on 4 Nov. What the catholic members expected was that Wentworth would introduce bills to confirm the ‘graces’ to which Charles had given his word. On his announcing that he did not intend to submit all of these to legislation, they being, through the absence of some of the protestant members, in a majority, broke out into what Wentworth held to be a mutiny, and, under the leadership of Sir Piers Crosby, a privy councillor, urged the rejection of those bills that had been laid before them. In a despatch to the secretary of state, Wentworth treated their conduct as arising not from a natural anger at seeing the king's promise to them broken, but from a desire to prevent the cause of good government prospering in English hands; for he wrote, ‘The friars and jesuits fear that these laws would conform them here to the manners of England, and in time be a means to lead them on to a conformity in religion and faith also; they catholicly oppose and fence up every path leading to so good a purpose; and indeed I plainly see that so long as this kingdom continues popish, they are not a people for the crown of England to be confident of; whereas if they were not still distempered by the infusion of these friars and jesuits, I am of belief they would be as good and loyal to their king as any other subjects’ (ib. i. 345). In these words lay the strength and weakness of Wentworth's Irish policy. He would strive his best to raise Ireland to the highest standard of English well-being, but his reforms must be emphatically English. The customs, the feelings, the very religion of Irishmen, might of necessity meet with contemptuous toleration for a time, but it was the business of governments ultimately to sweep them away in order that Irishmen might at last be happy in conforming to the English model. Wentworth through the return of the protestant absentees recovered his majority. He struck Crosby's name off the privy council book, and in this and in two other short sessions in 1635, he obtained the passage of a body of legislation carrying into effect the greater number of the ‘graces.’ He would gladly have kept this parliament in existence, but Charles insisted on a dissolution.


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/78

60 while Balquidder and Dunrossness bemoan the ignorance of Rome. Thus, to the high entertainment of the angels, do we pelt each other with, evangelists, like school-boys bickering in the snow. The inn was again singularly unpretentious. The whole furniture of a not ill-to-do family was in the kitchen: the beds, the cradle, the clothes, the plate-rack, the meal-chest, and the photograph of the parish priest. There were five children, one of whom was set to its morning prayers at the stair-foot soon after my arrival, and a sixth would erelong be forthcoming. I was kindly received by these good folk. They were much interested in my misadventure. The wood in which I had slept belonged to them; the man of Fouzilhac they thought a monster of iniquity, and counselled me warmly to summon him at law—"because I might have died." The good wife was horror-stricken to see me drink over a pint of uncreamed milk. "You will do yourself an evil," she said. "Permit me to boil it for you."


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/281

 The ‘graces’ which Wentworth refused to pass into law were two: one which agreed to confirm defective titles to land, and the other giving a special promise to the landowners of Connaught that their right to their estates should never again be questioned. As far as the past was concerned, it was not that he wanted to seize lands from owners whose titles had been lost or destroyed in the wars which had devastated Ireland: he merely wanted to make the concession profitable to the state; and, with that end in view, he appointed commissioners to negotiate separately with the landowners, requiring them to set aside a permanent rent to the crown in consideration of a confirmation of their titles. The case of Connaught was part of a larger policy. Wentworth had set his mind on carrying further the plantation policy of James I. English colonists were to be settled in the purely Celtic regions to teach the natives the advantages of English civilisation, and in the meantime to form a garrison against domestic disaffection or foreign invasion. It was without effect on his mind that in 1635 the Ulster plan was shown not to have effected all that had been expected of it in this direction, and that, in accordance with a decree of the English Star-chamber, the city of London was declared to have forfeited its lands in that province for allowing the natives to encroach upon lands set apart for the settlers and for other similar misdemeanours; while it was shown in the progress of the inquiry that the natives, so far from embracing protestantism, had remained constant to their own religion. Wentworth resolved to plant Connaught with Englishmen, and, to carry all before him, visited that province in person in the summer. He insisted on the highly technical claim that Connaught had been granted in the fourteenth century to Lionel, duke of Clarence, and that, King Charles being the duke's heir and prescription not being available against the king, all Connaught belonged to the crown. In Roscommon, Sligo, and Mayo he got juries to pass a verdict in favour of this view of the case. In Galway the jury being recalcitrant, he fined the sheriff for returning a packed jury, sent the jurymen before the castle chamber to answer for their action, and procured a decree from the court of exchequer to set aside their adverse verdict. His proceeding in this case showed his character at his worst. In pursuit of an object which to him appeared politically expedient—the settlement of Englishmen in Connaught—he not merely swept aside all consideration for the wishes and habits of the people with whom he was dealing, but justified his action by the employment of legal chicanery. After this it was of little importance that Charles's plighted word had been given not to do the very thing which his imperious minister was doing in his name.

So harsh to the feelings of whole communities, Wentworth was not likely to avoid giving offence to private persons, especially as he was subject to occasional fits of the gout, which did not, when they occurred, render him more forbearing. In November 1634 he summoned before him one Esmond, who had refused to carry some of the king's timber in a vessel belonging to himself. Irritated by Esmond's attitude, he shook his cane at, though it is almost certain that he did not strike, him. He, however, sent Esmond to prison, where he soon afterwards died of consumption. It was at once given out that he died from the consequences of a blow inflicted by the lord deputy (cf., iii. 888, with State Papers, Dom. ccccxx. 36, and a statement by Lord Esmond in State Papers, Ireland, undated).

Wentworth's eagerness to secure from the English officials at Dublin the same devotion to the public service that he himself displayed brought him into collision with Lord Mountnorris, the vice-treasurer and an active member of the council. During the greater part of 1634 and the spring of 1635 Wentworth had constantly to complain of his acts of malversation, or at least of irregular practices, in the execution of his office. Mountnorris, probably knowing that the eye of the lord deputy was upon him, had begun to make arrangements for his resignation. In April 1635 he broke them off, and announced his intention of leaving his case in the king's hands. It is to be supposed that he was encouraged by the knowledge that there was a party at court hostile to Wentworth, and that this party was supported by the powerful interest of the queen, who disliked Wentworth's resistance to her wish to grant snug berths in Ireland for her favourites. Mountnorris was now quick to take offence. A kinsman of Mountnorris having dropped a stool on Wentworth's gouty foot, Mountnorris spoke of this event at a dinner at the lord chancellor's as having been done in revenge. ‘But,’ he added, ‘I have a brother who would not take such a revenge.’ On 31 July Charles gave authority to Wentworth to inquire into Mountnorris's malpractices (Strafford Letters, i. 448), and in another letter empowered him to bring Mountnorris before a court-martial (ib. i.


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/79

Rh After I had begun the morning on this delightful liquor, she having an infinity of things to arrange, I was permitted, nay requested, to make a bowl of chocolate for myself. My boots and gaiters were hung up to dry, and, seeing me trying to write my journal on my knee, the eldest daughter let down a hinged table in the chimney-corner for my convenience. Here I wrote, drank my chocolate, and finally ate an omelette before I left. The table was thick with dust; for, as they explained, it was not used except in winter weather. I had a clear look up the vent, through brown agglomerations of soot and blue vapour, to the sky; and whenever a handful of twigs was thrown on to the fire, my legs were scorched by the blaze. The husband had begun life as a muleteer, and when I came to charge Modestine showed himself full of the prudence of his art. "You will have to change this package," said he; "it ought to be in two parts, and then you might have double the weight." I explained that I wanted no more weight; and


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/282

 498). After Wentworth's return from Connaught the inquiry was held to Mountnorris's detriment (ib. i. 497), and on 12 Dec. Wentworth summoned him before a council of war, which condemned him to death, as being a captain in the army, for inciting his brother, a lieutenant, to revenge himself on the deputy for a real or imaginary wrong. Wentworth, however, only wanted to frighten Mountnorris into a resignation of his office. When that end was obtained he was set at liberty. So much hostility had been awakened by these proceedings that Wentworth thought it advisable to plead his own cause at court. On 21 June 1636 he made a statement before the council at Westminster setting forth the marvellous improvement of Irish affairs since he had become deputy (ib. ii. 16). He returned to Dublin with a full assurance of the king's favour.

Up to this time, so far as we know, Wentworth's opinion had never been asked on affairs outside his own department. On 28 Feb. 1637 Charles, who had just received the opinion of the judges in favour of his right to levy ship-money, consulted him on the advisability of taking part at sea in the war which France and other states were waging against the house of Austria (ib. ii. 53). Wentworth's advice, given on 31 March (ib. ii. 59), was distinctly against war. Apart from his dislike of a war with Spain, and his clear view of the difficulties which would attend any attempt to recover the Palatinate, he held that the king was not yet strong enough to go to war at all. It was true that the opinion of the judges in favour of the legality of ship-money was ‘the greatest service that profession hath done the crown at any time,’ but unless the king ‘were declared to have the like power to raise a land army upon the same exigent of state,’ the crown stood but on ‘one leg at home,’ and was ‘considerable but by halves to foreign princes abroad.’ To fortify ‘this piece’ would for ever vindicate ‘the royalty at home from under the conditions and restraints of subjects.’ So far had Wentworth travelled. It is true that he had never done more than support parliament in refusing supplies required to carry out what he judged to be an evil policy, yet he had never before so distinctly sided with the advocates of an absolute sself-centred monarchy. Between him and his old parliamentary allies—they had never been more—there was more than a difference of judgment on the existing form of government. The real question was whether future generations would be better governed if the crown were freed from ‘the conditions and restraints of subjects.’

Wentworth's strength, however, lay rather in action than in theory, and at the close of a progress in the summer of 1637 he was able to boast of the prospects of material improvement. ‘Hither we are come,’ he wrote from Limerick, ‘through a country, by my faith, if as well husbanded, built, and peopled as are you in England, would show itself not much inferior to the very best you have there.’ Two more districts, Ormonde and Clare, had been secured for a plantation, and that ‘which beauties and seasons the work exceedingly, with all possible contentment and satisfaction of the people’ (State Papers, Ireland). Wentworth's attempt to build up a government in Ireland on the comfort of the people came to nothing. Englishmen had too much to do at home, and the expected settlers for Connaught or other districts were not to be had, and Wentworth himself was interrupted by a summons to shore up the tottering monarchy in England. That he should have judged fairly the men who broke in upon his beneficent labours was not to be expected. To Laud, writing on 10 April 1638, he expressed a wish that Hampden and his like ‘were well whipped into their right senses’ (Strafford Letters, ii. 156). In July he expressed himself no less strongly on the Scottish covenant, and recommended that Berwick and Carlisle should be garrisoned and the troops exercised during the winter in preparation for an invasion of Scotland in the following summer, when the ports could be blockaded and commerce destroyed. The strong hand against the nation must be accompanied by clemency towards individuals. No blood was to be shed on the scaffold. Conquered Scotland was to be governed by a council subordinate to the English privy council. The English common prayer book was to be substituted for the newly invented one against which the Scots had protested (ib. ii. 189). When Charles prepared for war in 1639, Wentworth backed his opinion by sending 2,000l. to the king towards the support of the army. Yet he protested against an invasion being attempted with a raw army, the only one at Charles's disposal, and urged him to be content with a blockade of the Scottish ports till he had time to discipline his men. He had been too long absent from England to appreciate the change of feeling there towards the crown, and he thought it possible that English soldiers would be content to serve five or six months at their own expense, and that after that a parliament would be willing to grant supplies for the next campaign (ib. ii. 279).


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/80

62 for no donkey hitherto created would I cut my sleeping-bag in two. "It fatigues her, however," said the innkeeper; "it fatigues her greatly on the march. Look." Alas, there were her two forelegs no better than raw beef on the inside, and blood was running from under her tail. They told me when I left, and I was ready to believe it, that before a few days I should come to love Modestine like a dog. Three days had passed, we had shared some misadventures, and my heart was still as cold as a potato towards my beast of burthen. She was pretty enough to look at; but then she had given proof of dead stupidity, redeemed indeed by patience, but aggravated by flashes of sorry and ill-judged light-heartedness. And I own this new discovery seemed another point against her. What the devil was the good of a she-ass if she could not carry a sleeping-bag and a few necessaries? I saw the end of the fable rapidly approaching, when I should have to carry Modestine. Æsop was the man to know the world! I assure


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/283

 Before the value of Wentworth's advice could be tested he was once more in England. Some time before he learnt that Crosby and Mountnorris had been collecting evidence against him in the Esmond case. He anticipated their attack by prosecuting them in the Star-chamber as the authors of grave statements circulated to his discredit. The suit came up for judgment in May 1639, and Wentworth appeared to enforce his views. He had also to justify himself against the complaint of the Irish chancellor, Lord Loftus of Ely, against whom he had given sentence—as it was alleged unreasonably—in favour of his daughter-in-law's claim for a settlement (see for the whole affair,, first , to which may be added, as an argument against the suspicion that Wentworth had been too familiar with the young Lady Loftus, the testimony of his intimate friend Sir G. Radcliffe, Strafford Letters, ii. 435).

Wentworth not merely gained his way on all these points, but on 22 Sept., when the attempt to invade Scotland had broken down and Charles was beginning to be dissatisfied with the results of the treaty of Berwick, he was admitted by the king to the informal position of his chief counsellor. It was to him that was owing the advice to summon parliament, coupled with the suggestion that, to make Charles independent of parliament, the privy councillors should make up a sufficient sum as a loan. His advice was accepted, and he himself contributed 20,000l. on the security of the recusants' fines in the north, the collection of which was in his own hands. Before parliament met in England he was to revisit Ireland, and to summon a parliament in Dublin to show the way of loyalty to the one at Westminster. On 12 Jan. 1640 he was created Baron of Raby and Earl of Strafford. His assumption of the title of Raby gave deep offence to the elder Vane [see, the elder]. It was, says Clarendon, ‘an act of the most unnecessary provocation that I have known, and I believe was the chief occasion of the loss of his head.’ Shortly afterwards Strafford was raised to the dignity of lord lieutenant of Ireland. He was to bring with him from that country a thousand men to serve against the Scots, and was himself named lieutenant-general under the Earl of Northumberland, who was to take command of the invading army. Before leaving for Dublin Strafford supported the claims of Robert Sidney, second earl of Leicester [q. v.], to the secretaryship about to be vacated by Sir John Coke, but Charles refused his request, and appointed the elder Vane. Strafford's advocacy of Leicester's candidature is mainly noticeable as a sign of his desire to be on good terms with the queen, who also favoured it.

On 18 March 1640 the lord lieutenant landed in Ireland. He found the parliament already sitting, and on the 23rd a majority, composed of officials and Roman catholics, voted four subsidies, or about 180,000l. There can be little doubt that the Roman catholics hoped by supporting Charles against the covenanters to obtain toleration for their own religion. The next day Strafford wrote to Secretary Windebank that, if only money were sent him in advance of the collection of the subsidies, he would assist the king with an army of nine thousand men from Ireland (Strafford Letters, ii. 398). As soon as the session was ended he returned to Westminster to take his place in the House of Lords in the Short parliament. He found everything in confusion. On 23 April the commons resolved not to vote supplies till their grievances had been redressed. On this Strafford audaciously recommended Charles to go in person to the House of Lords, and to urge the peers to declare that the king ought to be satisfied before grievances were presented (Montreuil to Bellièvre, 10 March, 30 April, Bibl. Nat. Fr. 15995, fol. 81). On the 27th Charles spoke as Strafford had suggested, and was supported by a majority of sixty-one to twenty-five. Strafford had not only gained the support of the peers; he even obtained the queen's favour, who now in the time of peril discovered his value. The commons, on the other hand, on 27 April declared the intervention of the lords to be a breach of privilege. On 2 May, the king having asked for an immediate answer to his request for money, Strafford announced that a refusal would be followed by a dissolution. On the 3rd Strafford induced the king to hold out a hand to the opposition by allowing the ship-money judgment to be carried to the House of Lords upon a writ of error, at the same time urging him not to require the exact twelve subsidies which he had authorised Vane to demand, but simply to ‘put it upon’ the affections of his subjects. Charles could not understand the wisdom of this course, but agreed to be content with no more than eight subsidies (, Life of Radcliffe, p. 233).

It is uncertain whether Vane played the traitor or persuaded the vacillating king to return to his former resolution. At all events, on the 4th he announced to the commons that, if ship-money was to be abandoned, the whole twelve subsidies must be granted. The house made further demands, but broke


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Innocent/Innocent XI


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/81

Rh you I set out with heavy thoughts upon my short day's march.

It was not only heavy thoughts about Modestine that weighted me upon the way; it was a leaden business altogether. For first, the wind blew so rudely that I had to hold on the pack with one hand from Cheylard to Luc; and second, my road lay through one of the most beggarly countries in the world. It was like the worst of the Scotch Highlands, only worse; cold, naked, and ignoble, scant of wood, scant of heather, scant of life. A road and some fences broke the unvarying waste, and the line of the road was marked by upright pillars, to serve in time of snow. Why any one should desire to visit either Luc or Cheylard is more than my much-inventing spirit can suppose. For my part, I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel's sake. The great affair is to move; to feel the needs and hitches of our life more nearly; to come down off this feather-bed of civilisation, and find the globe granite underfoot and strewn with cutting


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/284

 up without coming to a resolution. That night it was known at court that Pym intended to move the house at its next sitting to adopt a petition asking the king to come to terms with the Scots (State Papers, Dom. cccclii. 46, 114, 115; Harl. MS. 4931, f. 49). Charles at once summoned the privy council to meet at the unusual hour of 6 A.M. On a declaration by Vane that there was no hope that the commons ‘would give one penny,’ Strafford voted with the majority for a dissolution. That morning the Short parliament was dissolved (, Works, iii. 284;, Life of Radcliffe, p. 233). Strafford's position was evidently that, while he preferred to accept whatever reasonable sums the commons were inclined to give, so long as they supported the war, he refused to bargain with them if they made it a condition that the war was to be stopped.

Later in the morning a meeting of the committee of eight appointed to give advice on Scottish affairs—of which Strafford was a member—was held to discuss the situation. Vane and others wished the king to content himself with defending England against invasion. Strafford, knowing that it would be impossible to procure supplies for protracted operations, was eager for an offensive move against Scotland which he thought would be decisive in a short time. He urged that the city should be required to lend 100,000l. for the purpose, and that ship-money should be collected. Northumberland hesitated to embark on war with means so scanty. ‘Go on vigorously,’ replied Strafford—at least so far as the hurried notes we possess enable us to ascertain his language—‘or let them alone. No defensive war; loss of honour and reputation. The quiet of England will hold out long. You will languish as betwixt Saul and David. Go on with a vigorous war, as you first designed, loose and absolved from all rules of government; being reduced to extreme necessity, everything is to be done that power might admit, and that you are to do. They refusing, you are acquitted before God and man. You have an army in Ireland you may employ here to reduce this kingdom. Confident as anything under heaven, Scotland shall not hold out five months. One summer well employed will do it. Venture all I had, I would carry it or lose it. Whether a defensive war is as impossible as an offensive, or whether to let them alone’ (Hist. MSS. Comm. 3rd Rep. p. 3). Later on a question was to arise as to whether the kingdom to be reduced was England or Scotland. Taking the position of the words in the speech, it is at least highly probable that England was intended (see a discussion of this in my Hist. of England, 1603–42, ix. 123 n.) At all events, the Irish army was only intended to be employed in England in the case of rebellion in that country. Its primary employment would be in Scotland. Within two days it was rumoured that the king thought of using the Irish army against his English subjects, as well as against the Scots (Montreuil to Bellièvre, 7–17 May, Bibl. Nat. Fr. 15995, fol. 84). From that moment a strong feeling of wrathful indignation against Strafford—‘Black Tom Tyrant’ as he was called—arose among his English countrymen.

With the government the first necessity was to raise money. On 10 May, on the refusal of the lord mayor and aldermen to take any steps to raise a loan, Strafford told the king that unless he hanged some of them he would do no good. Baffled in the city, Strafford turned to the three Spanish ambassadors then in England, requesting them to ask the king of Spain to lend 300,000l. If the security offered was thought insufficient, that king might confiscate the property of English merchants in his harbours. In the midst of this agitation Strafford was incapacitated from open action by an attack of dysentery. On 24 May, when he was convalescent, he was visited by the king, and threw off his warm gown to receive him properly. The result was that he caught a chill, and for some days his life was despaired of. It was not till 5 July that Strafford was sufficiently recovered to take his seat in the council. By that time the Irish parliament had proved restive in the absence of his controlling hand, having insisted on a mode of collecting the subsidies voted by it which would seriously diminish their amount. Nevertheless, it was expected that the Irish army would rendezvous at Carrickfergus towards the end of July, in readiness to cross the sea. In England various schemes for raising money had been tried in vain, and the English forces marching northwards were in a dissatisfied and almost mutinous condition. On 11 July Strafford supported a scheme for the debasement of the coinage (State Papers, Dom. cccclix. 77), and threatened strong measures against those who opposed it. Later in the month he again pleaded in vain with the Spanish ambassadors for a loan, offering his personal security for the repayment of 100,000l. When on 30 July a petition against the violence of the soldiers was presented from Yorkshire, Strafford urged that it should be rejected as an act of mutiny. He could see that Charles had brought himself to such a


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/82

64 flints. Alas, as we get up in life, and are more preoccupied with our affairs, even a holiday is a thing that must be worked for. To hold a pack upon a pack-saddle against a gale out of the freezing north is no high industry, but it is one that serves to occupy and compose the mind. And when the present is so exacting, who can annoy himself about the future? I came out at length above the Allier. A more unsightly prospect at this season of the year it would be hard to fancy. Shelving hills rose round it on all sides, here dabbled with wood and fields, there rising to peaks alternately naked and hairy with pines. The colour throughout was black or ashen, and came to a point in the ruins of the castle of Luc, which pricked up impudently from below my feet, carrying on a pinnacle a tall white statue of our Lady, which, I heard with interest, weighed fifty quintals, and was to be dedicated on the 6th of October. Through this sorry landscape trickled the Allier and a tributary of nearly equal size, which came down to join it through a broad nude valley in Vivarais. The weather had


text:
User:TalBot/soft redirect maintenance/August 2010/references

 * Black Vulmea's Vengeance/Chapter I
 * Black Vulmea's Vengeance/Chapter II
 * Black Vulmea's Vengeance/Chapter III
 * Black Vulmea's Vengeance/Chapter IV
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 1
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 10
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 11
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 12
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 13
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 14
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 15
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 16
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 17
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 18
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 19
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 2
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 20
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 21
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 22
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 23
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 24
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 25
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 26
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 27
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 28
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 29
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 3
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 4
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 5
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 6
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 7
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 8
 * Mehalah: A Story of the Salt Marshes/Chapter 9
 * The Cup
 * The Cup (Powys)
 * User:AdamBMorgan/Books/A Book of Robert E. Howard
 * User:Bookofjude/anon
 * User:Cirt/Contributions
 * User:Pray rosary well
 * User:TalBot/Missing headers


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/285

 pass that if he could be saved at all it could only be by the ruthless employment of despotic power, ‘loose and absolved from all rules of government;’ but he failed in this to secure the support of the king. As far as words could give power he had backing enough. On 3 Aug. a patent appointed him ‘captain-general over the army in Ireland, and of such in England as the king by his sign manual shall add thereunto to resist all invasions and seditious attempts in England, Ireland, and Wales, and to be led into Scotland there to invade, kill, and slay.’ He was to lead these troops into ‘any of the king's dominions, with power to suppress rebellion or commotions within any of the three kingdoms or Wales’ (Abstract of the patent in Carte MSS. i. 240).

This patent is the best comment on Strafford's declaration, ‘You have an army in Ireland you may employ here to reduce this kingdom.’ That army never crossed the sea. The English force broke down before the Irish one was in a position to move. On 8 Aug. Strafford once more pleaded with the Spanish ambassadors for a loan, if it were but of 50,000l. This time the ambassadors forwarded to the cardinal-infant at Brussels a recommendation that the request should be granted, but before an answer could be received Charles's military power had fallen into a condition in which it was no longer worth helping. On 20 Aug. it was known that the Scots had crossed the Tweed. Strafford persuaded himself that such a disgrace would rally England round the king. On the 27th he appealed to the gentry of his own county of Yorkshire, telling them that they were bound to resist invasion ‘by the common law of England, by the law of nature, and by the law of reason’ (, ii. 12, 35). On the very next day, 28 Aug., the Scots defeated Conway at Newburn, and his beaten troops had afterwards to fall back on York, where the main body of the English army was gathering in a sullen mood.

That army was now virtually under Strafford's command, as he was himself lieutenant-general; and Northumberland, the general, had remained in the south in broken health. To the king Strafford maintained his wonted cheerfulness. To his bosom friend Sir G. Radcliffe he acknowledged the hopelessness of the situation. ‘Pity me,’ he wrote, ‘for never came any man to so lost a business. The army altogether necessitous and unprovided of all necessaries. That part which I bring now with me from Durham, the worst I ever saw. Our horse all cowardly; the country from Berwick to York in the power of the Scots; an universal affright in all; a general disaffection to the king's service; none sensible of his dishonour. In one word, here alone to fight with all these evils, without any one to help. God of his goodness deliver me out of this the greatest evil of my life’ (, Life of Radcliffe, p. 203).

To some extent Strafford had been right in thinking that Englishmen would be roused by a Scottish invasion. On 13 Sept. he persuaded the Yorkshiremen to support their own trained bands, a success which Charles rewarded by making him a knight of the Garter. Other counties in the northern midlands seemed likely to follow the example of Yorkshire; but this feeling did not extend to the south, and London was clamouring for redress of grievances by means of an English parliament. On 24 Sept. the great council of peers having met at York, Charles announced to it that he had already issued writs for a parliament. In the great council Strafford urged the necessity of raising 200,000l. at once, and a deputation was sent to London to ask for a loan to that amount. With this Strafford's influence over affairs came to an end. On 6 Oct. he attempted in vain to inspirit the great council to resist the demands of the Scots, and on the 8th suggested in a private letter that the renewal of war might be marked by an attack of the Irish army upon the Scottish settlers in Ulster, with the object of driving them out of Ireland (ib. p. 206). By this time Strafford knew that the Scots were prepared to name him as a chief incendiary. When, on 28 Oct., the great council held its last session, even he did not venture to advise further resistance, and he knew enough of the temper of the new parliament which had by that time been elected to remain in Yorkshire when it met.

On 3 Nov. 1640 the Long parliament met, and Charles, either feeling the need of his counsel or moved by the intrigues of the personal enemies of the earl, sent for him, assuring him that if he came he ‘should not suffer in his person, honour, or fortune.’ Strafford set out on 6 Nov. ‘with more dangers beset, I believe,’ as he wrote, ‘than ever any man went out of Yorkshire’ (, Life of Radcliffe, pp. 214, 228), reaching London on the 9th. On 10 Nov. the parliamentary committee on Irish affairs named a sub-committee to examine complaints that had reached it from Mountnorris and other of Strafford's enemies in Ireland. As this sub-committee was not to meet till the 12th, it was evident that the leaders of the House of Commons had no intention of acting in a


text: User:TalBot/soft redirect maintenance/August 2010/changes


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/83

Rh somewhat lightened, and the clouds massed in squadron; but the fierce wind still hunted them through heaven, and cast great ungainly splashes of shadow and sunlight over the scene. Luc itself was a straggling double file of houses wedged between hill and river. It had no beauty, nor was there any notable feature, save the old castle overhead with its fifty quintals of brand-new Madonna. But the inn was clean and large. The kitchen, with its two box-beds hung with clean check curtains, with its wide stone chimney, its chimney-shelf four yards long and garnished with lanterns and religious statuettes, its array of chests and pair of ticking clocks, was the very model of what a kitchen ought to be; a melodrama kitchen, suitable for bandits or noblemen in disguise. Nor was the scene disgraced by the landlady, a handsome, silent, dark old woman, clothed and hooded in black like a nun. Even the public bedroom had a character of its own, with the long deal tables and benches, where fifty might have dined, set out as for a harvest-home, and the three box-beds along the wall. In one of these, lying on straw


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/84

66 and covered with a pair of table-napkins, did I do penance all night long in goose-flesh and chattering teeth, and sigh from time to time as I awakened for my sheepskin sack and the lee of some great wood.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/287

 England and of his majesty's subjects, and altering and subverting the fundamental laws and established government of this kingdom’ was reached. He had, it was said, declared that the king, if parliament failed to supply him, might use ‘his prerogative as he pleased to levy what he needed, and that he should be acquitted of God and man if he took some courses to supply himself, though it were against the will of his subjects.’ The elder Vane was brought forward as a witness that the words advocating the employment of the Irish army to ‘reduce this kingdom’ had been actually spoken. Strafford urged, in reply, that he had meant to use the Irish army in Scotland. The most probable explanation is that Strafford's intention had been to employ it in Scotland, but that he had hypothetically expressed his readiness to use it in England if the English nobility rose in support of the Scots. ‘In case of absolute necessity,’ he said, ‘and upon a foreign invasion of an enemy, when the enemy is either actually entered or ready to enter, and when all other ordinary means fail, in this case there is a trust left by Almighty God in the king to employ the best and uttermost of his means for the preserving of himself and his people, which, under favour, he cannot take away from himself.’ This view of the case, that of all fundamentals the kingship was the most fundamental, was in direct opposition to Pym's view that this was the position of parliament alone. To his constitutional argument Strafford, with the eye of a tactician, added an appeal to the interests of the peers. How would any of them venture to enter the king's service if he were liable to be condemned as a traitor for delivering an opinion which ought to have been kept secret? When the lawyers who followed had done their worst and the proceedings were adjourned, it was known that Strafford had gained considerable support among the lords who sat as his judges.

To Pym and his colleagues the event of an acquittal seemed to be a grave public calamity. They knew, what has now been placed beyond dispute, that Charles and the queen had been considering a plan for the bringing the influence of the English army in the north to beat down opposition in parliament. They knew, too, that the army itself was discontented for want of pay, and was ready to vent its displeasure on parliament. The leaders of the commons were more than ever convinced that Strafford must be got rid of as a public enemy. On 7 April fresh charges were brought against him. On the 8th the commons resolved to produce the copy taken by the younger Vane of his father's notes of the proceedings in the committee of eight. On the 10th there was a dispute as to Strafford's right to produce fresh evidence in reply to the fresh charges now brought forward by the commons, and the lords decided in Strafford's favour. The meeting broke up in confusion.

When the commons returned to their own house, it was resolved to proceed by a bill of attainder, which the lords must either accept or refuse. Pym objected to drop the constitutional pleadings, and, though he was obliged to submit to the first reading of the bill, he contrived on the 12th to regain the mastery. The house abandoned its claim to produce fresh charges. The lords, on the other hand, called on Strafford to proceed with his reply to his accusers, as if the lower house had manifested no intention of changing the procedure. On the 13th Strafford made a masterly defence, asking how a number of misdemeanours could be held to constitute treason. Pym argued, speaking from his notes, and not as Strafford with unassisted vehemence, that the prisoner was guilty of divorcing the king from his subjects, and that in this lay the treason he had committed. Whatever Pym might wish, the House of Commons insisted on proceeding with the attainder bill, and on the 15th asked the lords to postpone the trial. The lords took offence, and ordered the lawyers to go on with their arguments. On the 19th the commons declared Strafford to be a traitor, and on the 21st, by a majority of 204 to 59, it passed the attainder bill. It was no secret that the lords were likely to take offence at the distrust in their judicial character revealed by this new procedure.

It is evident that much depended on Charles's skill in carrying the lords with him in the constitutional struggle. ‘The misfortune that is fallen upon you,’ he wrote to Strafford, ‘being such that I must lay by the thought of employing you hereafter in my affairs, yet I cannot satisfy myself in honour or conscience without assuring you now, in the midst of your troubles, that, upon the word of a king, you shall not suffer in life, honour, or fortune.’ For a time he played his cards well. He entered into communication with the parliamentary leaders, Bedford, Saye, and Pym, offering to admit them to office, probably on the understanding that some lesser punishment than death was to be inflicted on Strafford; while the lords on 27 April gave a second reading to the bill, which committed them to nothing. Whether the negotiation broke


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/288

 down through Charles's fault or not cannot be said. Even if it was his fault, it was the more incumbent on him to gain over the majority of the peers by showing that he was resolved to seek Strafford's liberation from death by constitutional methods only. It is beyond doubt that he and the queen intended to save him by assisting him to escape, and at the same time were plotting to seize the Tower, where they expected Balfour, the lieutenant, to be ready to play into their hands, and to retire to Portsmouth, where they believed the governor, Goring, to be ready to admit them, and then to summon Irish and Dutch forces to their help, while a dissolution of parliament was to render their opponents helpless. Unluckily for Charles and Strafford, some of this plan was certain to leak out, especially as Goring was betraying to Pym so much as he knew of the secret. On 28 April the commons learnt that a vessel chartered by Strafford's secretary had been for some time lying in the Thames, evidently to enable him to escape, and the king's reiterated refusal to disband the Irish army increased their suspicions.

On the following day St. John, arguing on the legal point before the lords, denied that any consideration ought to be shown to Strafford. ‘We give law,’ he said, ‘to hares and deer, because they be beasts of chase; it was never accounted either cruelty or foul play to knock foxes and wolves on the head … because they be beasts of prey.’ It was the present, not the past, danger to which St. John and the commons were looking, and the lords were gradually coming round to the same conclusion. On 1 May Charles tried to stem the tide by assuring the peers that he had resolved that Strafford was unfit to serve him even as a constable. On 2 May, which happened to be a Sunday, took place the marriage of the Princess Mary to the Prince William of Orange, and there is little doubt that the prince brought over money to enable Charles to enter on an armed struggle with the commons. On the same day Captain Billingsley appeared at the Tower gate, asking in the king's name for the admission of a hundred men, only to find that Balfour, the lieutenant of the Tower, refused to let him in. Sir John Suckling, too, was collecting armed men under the pretence of levying them for Portuguese service. The next day London was wild with excitement. A mob beset the House of Lords, crying for justice on Strafford, and posted up the names of the fifty-nine members of the House of Commons who had voted against the bill of attainder as ‘Straffordians, betrayers of their country.’ Of course there were wild tales bandied about in addition to those now known to be true. Pym still attempted to shield the king, and carried the house with him in voting a protestation, binding those who took it to endeavour to suppress plots and conspiracies. On 4 May the protestation was taken by the lords. Rumours, this time of French intervention, were widely spread, and on 5 May Pym at last revealed his knowledge of the army plot and of the danger of Portsmouth.

The knowledge which the lords now possessed, or believed themselves to possess, of the intrigues of Charles and the queen was fatal to Strafford. They did their best to stop the queen's intended journey to Portsmouth, and on 8 May passed the attainder bill. All that was now wanting was the royal assent. Strafford had already acknowledged that he could no longer avoid his fate. He had already, probably on 4 May (for the date see Hist. of Engl. ix. 362 n.), asked Charles to pass the bill, and, by sacrificing his minister, to come to an agreement with his subjects. On the 8th, when the attainder bill was passed, London was wildly excited by a rumour that a French fleet had seized Guernsey and Jersey. The queen's carriage was actually at the door of Whitehall to carry her to Portsmouth. When she abandoned her design, the lords sent two deputations to urge Charles to assent to the bill. An armed mob flocked to Whitehall to enforce their request.

Strafford made one last effort. In a paper addressed to the king, he asked him to refuse to pass the bill except conditionally on its being understood that he was to pardon the earl in respect of life, or otherwise to set it aside in favour of another bill incapacitating the prisoner from all offices or from giving counsel to the crown, with the penalty of high treason annexed if the earl failed to fulfil these conditions (‘Papers relating to Strafford,’ ed. Firth, Camden Miscellany, vol. ix.). All through the next day, Monday the 9th, the king hesitated. Having obtained from the judges an opinion that Strafford had committed treason, he consulted four bishops. Juxon and Ussher advised him to stand firm; Williams urged him to yield. He could not make up his mind. A last attempt to bribe Balfour to forward his escape had failed, and Newport, who was now constable of the Tower, had announced that if the king did not assent to the bill he would have Strafford executed without legal warrant. The mob was again howling outside Whitehall and threatening violence to the queen and her mother. Before this latter menace Charles gave way, and


text: User:TalBot/soft redirect maintenance/August 2010/exceptions


text: Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/85


text: Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/86


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/289

 on 10 May the royal assent was given by commission to the bill. Strafford is said to have been surprised by the news, and to have exclaimed, ‘Put not your trust in princes!’ If he used the expression, he must have received an assurance from Charles that the advice given in the earl's paper of the 8th would be followed out.

On the 11th, knowing that his execution was to take place on the following morning, Strafford sent a message to Laud, also imprisoned in the Tower, to be at his window as he passed. When he went forth on 12 May 1641, Laud raised his hands in blessing, and then fainted away when his friend passed. On the scaffold on Tower Hill Strafford told the vast crowd assembled to see him die that he had always believed ‘parliaments in England to be the happy constitution of the kingdom and nation, and the best means under God to make the king and his people happy,’ asking further whether it was well that the ‘beginning of the people's happiness should be written in letters of blood.’ Refusing to bind his eyes he, after prayer, spread forth his hands as a sign to the executioner, and the axe ended his life. He was buried at Wentworth-Woodhouse.

Van Dyck seems to have painted Strafford at least four times. The best known portrait is that of Strafford and his secretary, Sir Philip Mainwaring [q. v.], now in the possession of Sir Philip Tatton Mainwaring, bart. It was engraved by Vertue and prefixed to the ‘Strafford Letters,’ 1739; four other engravings of this portrait are mentioned by Bromley. Another portrait of Strafford by Van Dyck is at Wentworth-Woodhouse, the seat of Earl Fitzwilliam, and a third belonged in 1866 to the Earl of Home (Cat. First Loan Exhib. Nos. 579, 624). A fourth, belonging to the Duke of Portland, is at Welbeck, and is reproduced in Mr C. Fairfax Murray's ‘Catalogue of Pictures at Welbeck’ (p. 25). There are also engravings by Hollar, Houbraken, R. Houston, G. Glover, and R. White, and an engraving of Strafford and his three surviving children by Vertue (, p. 76).

Strafford's aims as a statesman are easy to discern. A reformer by nature, he sought to retain the kingship in the position it had acquired under the Tudors—to be assisted but not controlled by parliaments. To maintain this position was impossible with Charles, and Strafford was therefore forced into a reaction from which the Tudor sovereigns had kept themselves free. Personally he was most lovable by all who submitted to his influence, with an imperious temper towards all who thwarted him.

By his second wife, Arabella Holles, Strafford had four children, three of whom outlived him: William (see below); Anne, born in October 1627; and Arabella, born in October 1630 (Strafford Letters, ii. 430). By his third wife, Elizabeth Rodes, he had a daughter Margaret.

Strafford's honours were forfeited by his attainder, but his only son, William, who was born on 8 June 1626, received them all by a fresh grant from Charles I on 1 Dec. 1641. In 1662 parliament reversed his father's attainder, and William, already first Earl of Strafford of the second creation, became also second earl of the first creation in succession to his father. He was elected K.G. on 1 April 1661 and F.R.S. on 6 Feb. 1668. He married, first, on 27 Feb. 1654–5, Anne (d. 1685), daughter of James Stanley, seventh earl of Derby [q. v.]; and secondly, in 1694, Henrietta (d. 1732), daughter of Charles de la Roye de Rochefoucauld, count of Roye and Rouci. He died, without issue by either wife, on 16 Oct. 1695, when all the peerage honours conferred on himself or his father became extinct, except the barony of Raby, which descended to his nephew Thomas, who was on 4 Sept. 1711 created Earl of Strafford [see, (1672–1739)]. His estates descended to his daughter Anne, who married Edward Watson, second lord Rockingham, from whom was descended the Marquis of Rockingham, the patron of Burke [see, (1730–1782)].

[The main source of information on Strafford's life is the Earl of Strafford's Letters and Despatches, London, 1739, 2 vols. fol., in the appendix to which are some biographical notes by Strafford's friend Sir G. Radcliffe; this work was edited by William Knowler [q. v.] from the papers of Thomas Watson, lord Malton and afterwards first marquis of Rockingham, great-grandson of Strafford. References, beyond those mentioned above, are given in Gardiner's Hist. of Engl. 1603–42. There is a modern life by Elizabeth Cooper, 1866, and another by John Forster [q. v.], published in vol. i. of his ‘Lives of the Statesmen of the Commonwealth,’ 1836. Robert Browning's ‘Strafford: an Historical Tragedy’ was produced at Covent Garden on 23 April 1837 with Macready in the title-rôle, and was published in the same year. It is believed that a large number of volumes containing Strafford's unpublished correspondence are in the possession of Earl Fitzwilliam at Wentworth-Woodhouse.]  WENTWORTH, THOMAS,  (1613–1665), eldest son, by his first wife, of Thomas Wentworth, fourth baron Wentworth of Nettlestead and first earl of Cleveland [q. v.], was born at Todding-


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/87

EXT morning (Thursday, 26th September) I took the road in a new order. The sack was no longer doubled, but hung at full length across the saddle, a green sausage six feet long with a tuft of blue wool hanging out of either end. It was more picturesque, it spared the donkey, and, as I began to see, it would insure stability, blow high, blow low. But it was not without a pang that I had so decided. For although I had purchased a new cord, and made all as fast as I was able, I was yet jealously uneasy lest the flaps should tumble out and scatter my effects along the line of march. My way lay up the bald valley of the river, along the march of Vivarais and Gévaudan. The hills of Gévaudan on the right were a little more naked, if anything, than those of Vivarais upon the


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/88

70 left, and the former had a monopoly of a low dotty underwood that grew thickly in the gorges and died out in solitary burrs upon the shoulders and the summits. Black bricks of fir-wood were plastered here and there upon both sides, and here and there were cultivated fields. A railway ran beside the river; the only bit of railway in Gévaudan, although there are many proposals afoot and surveys being made, and even, as they tell me, a station standing ready-built in Mende. A year or two hence and this may be another world. The desert is beleaguered. Now may some Languedocian Wordsworth turn the sonnet into patois: "Mountains and vales and floods, heard that whistle?"

At a place called La Bastide I was directed to leave the river, and follow a road that mounted on the left among the hills of Vivarais, the modern Ardeche; for I was now come within a little way of my strange destination, the Trappist monastery of our Lady of the Snows. The sun came out as I left the shelter of a pine-wood, and I beheld suddenly a fine wild landscape to the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/290

 ton, knighted on 2 Feb. 1625–6, and entered at Trinity College, Oxford, in 1628; in 1631 he was at The Hague, at the court of the Queen of Bohemia, who frequently mentions him in her letters (see, Letters, passim). He was with his father at Berwick in 1640, and was in the same year returned to both the Short and Long parliaments; but on 25 Nov. 1640 was summoned to the upper house in his father's barony of Nettlestead. During the early part of the civil war (1642–5) he commanded a troop of horse, first under Charles, viscount Wilmot [q. v.], against whose dismissal he protested, and then under Lord Goring; was present at the battles of Cropredy Bridge and Newbury in 1644, and shared the revels and intrigues of Prince Charles's disastrous campaign in the west in 1645. In 1646, on Goring's flight to France, the chief command fell to Wentworth, who, according to Bulstrode (Memoirs, pp. 93–4, 149–53), ‘was not thought either of interest, experience, courage, or reputation enough for that trust.’ He was mainly responsible for the defeat and surrender at Torrington on 14 March 1646. He also presumed to talk ‘imperiously and disrespectfully’ to the prince; and, after being driven from his quarters at Ashburton, was placed as general of the horse under the chief command of Lord Hopton, with whom and the prince he eventually escaped to the Scilly Isles and Jersey. In 1649 he attended Charles to Paris, was with him in Scotland and at Worcester, and formed one of the council till the Restoration, being gentleman of the chamber and master of the ceremonies. His principal services were a diplomatic mission from Cologne to Denmark in 1653, and the organisation and command of the ‘royal regiment of guards’ in 1656, though he seems not to have been present at the battle of the Dunes in 1658. After the Restoration he retained this colonelcy, received 500l. from the king in November 1663, and died in his father's lifetime on 28 Feb. 1665. By his wife Philadelphia (d. 4 May 1696), daughter of Sir Ferdinando Carey, who was naturalised in 1662 and received a pension of 600l., very irregularly paid, he had an only child, Henrietta Maria Wentworth [q. v.], who succeeded his father in the barony. A portrait of Wentworth, painted in 1640, belongs to Mr. H. R. Clifton of Clifton Hall, Nottingham, and is reproduced in F. W. Hamilton's ‘Grenadier Guards.’ Lloyd credits him with ‘a very strong constitution and admirable parts for contrivance.’

[Authorities cited under, and F. W. Hamilton's Grenadier Guards, caps. i. and iii.]

WENTWORTH, THOMAS, fourth  of Nettlestead and first  (1591–1667), born in 1591, was the elder son of Henry, third baron Wentworth (d. 16 Aug. 1593), by Anne (d. May 1625), daughter of Sir Owen Hopton, lieutenant of the Tower. Thomas Wentworth, second baron [q. v.], was his grandfather. In 1595 his mother married Sir William Pope (1573–1631) of Wroxton (afterwards first Earl of Downe), and Thomas, with his brother Henry (d. 1644), afterwards a major-general in the king's army, and his sister Jane, who married Sir John Finet [q. v.], were brought up there. The boys matriculated on 12 Nov. 1602 at Trinity College, Oxford, their stepfather being the nephew of the founder, Sir Thomas Pope [q. v.]; a room had been built for them over the college library in 1601 at a cost of 50l. (Comp. Burs. Coll. Trin.) On 27 Aug. 1605 they appeared before James I at Christ Church (, Rex Platonicus, p. 35), and Thomas was created a knight of the Bath on 4 June 1610. In 1611 he married, and seems to have settled at Toddington, Bedfordshire, with his great-aunt Jane (Wentworth), lady Cheyney, on whose death on 16 April 1614 he added the estates there of the Cheyney family to the Wentworth property in Suffolk and Middlesex. In 1619 he became custos rotulorum for the county of Bedford. Lloyd (Memoires p. 570) says that he served under Prince Maurice in 1620 and Count Mansfeldt in 1624, but has probably confused him with his second wife's father, Sir John Wentworth of Gosfield (d. 1631), who took part in Vere's expedition of 1620. He took his seat in the House of Lords on 30 Jan. 1621, was made joint lord lieutenant of Bedfordshire on 5 May 1625, and was created Earl of Cleveland on 7 Feb. 1626. This promotion he seems to have owed to the favour of Buckingham, under whom he served in the expedition to La Rochelle in 1627; he was present when Buckingham was assassinated by Felton, and heard ‘the thump’ and the assassin's exclamation of ‘God have mercy on thy soul’ (, l.c. and, Eliot, ii. 355). His connection with the court had led him into great extravagance, and about 1630 he and his son began to raise loans chiefly from persons of rank; before 1638 they had heavily encumbered the lands in Bedfordshire and Middlesex, especially the manors of Stepney and Hackney, while they still owed 19,200l.

On 12 Feb. 1639 Cleveland wrote to say that he would join the king with ten men; and on 9 Oct. 1640 the garrison of Berwick was ‘very merry since the Earl of Cleveland


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/89

Rh south. High rocky hills, as blue as sapphire, closed the view, and between these lay ridge upon ridge, heathery, craggy, the sun glittering on veins of rock, the underwood clambering in the hollows, as rude as God made them at the first. There was not a sign of man's hand in all the prospect; and indeed not a trace of his passage, save where generation after generation had walked in twisted foot-paths, in and out among the beeches, and up and down upon the channelled slopes. The mists, which had hitherto beset me, were now broken into clouds, and fled swiftly and shone brightly in the sun. I drew a long breath. It was grateful to come, after so long, upon a scene of some attraction for the human heart. I own I like definite form in what my eyes are to rest upon; and if landscapes were sold, like the sheets of characters of my boyhood, one penny plain and twopence coloured, I should go the length of twopence every day of my life. But if things had grown better to the south, it was still desolate and inclement near at hand. A spidery cross on every hill-top marked the


title: Index:MichelsonMorley1886.djvu


text:
Page:Travels with a Donkey In The Cevennes.djvu/90

72 of a religious house; and a quarter of a mile beyond, the outlook southward opening out and growing bolder with every step, a white statue of the Virgin at the corner of a young plantation directed the traveller to our Lady of the Snows. Here, then, I struck leftward, and pursued my way, driving my secular donkey before me, and creaking in my secular boots and gaiters, towards the asylum of silence. I had not gone very far ere the wind brought to me the clanging of a bell, and somehow, I can scarce tell why, my heart sank within me at the sound. I have rarely approached anything with more unaffected terror than the monastery of our Lady of the Snows. This it is to have had a Protestant education. And suddenly, on turning a corner, fear took hold on me from head to foot—slavish superstitious fear; and though I did not stop in my advance, yet I went on slowly, like a man who should have passed a bourne unnoticed, and strayed into the country of the dead. For there upon the narrow new-made road, between the stripling pines, was a mediæval friar,


text:
Page:MichelsonMorley1886.djvu/1

only work of any consequence, on the influence upon the velocity of light of the motion of the medium through which it passes, is the experiment of Fizeau. He announced the remarkable result that the increment of velocity which the light experienced was not equal to the velocity of the medium, but was a fraction x of this velocity which depended on the index of refraction of the medium. This result was previously obtained theoretically by Fresnel, but most satisfactorily demonstrated by Eisenlohr, as follows:

Consider the prism AC in motion relatively to the ether in direction AB with velocity $$\theta$$. Suppose the density of the external ether to be 1 and of the ether within the prism, $$1+\Delta$$. In the time dt the prism will advance a distance $$\theta dt=BB$$. At

title: Page:MichelsonMorley1886.djvu/1


text:
Page:MichelsonMorley1886.djvu/2

 the beginning of this time the quantity of ether in the volume BC (if S=surface of the base of the prism,) is $$S\theta dt$$. At the end of the time the quantity will be $$S\theta dt(1+\Delta)$$. Hence in this time a quantity of ether has been introduced into this volume equal to $$S\theta dt\Delta$$.

It is required to find what must be the velocity of the ether contained in the prism to give the same result. Let this velocity be $$x\theta$$. The quantity of ether (density=$$1+\Delta$$) introduced will then be $$Sa\theta dt(1+\Delta)$$ and this is to be the same as $$S\theta dt\Delta$$, whence $$x=\frac{\Delta}{1+\Delta}$$. But the ratio of the velocity of light in the external ether to that within the prism is n, the index of refraction, and is equal to the inverse ratio of the square root of the densities, or $$n=\sqrt{1+\Delta}$$ whence $$x=\frac{n^{2}-1}{n^{2}}$$ which is Fresnel's formula. The following reasoning leads to nearly the same result; and though incomplete, may not be without interest, as it also gives a very simple explanation of the constancy of the specific refraction.

Let l be the mean distance light travels between two successive encounters with a molecule; then l is also the "mean free path" of the molecule. The time occupied in traversing this path is $$t=\frac{a}{v_{\prime}}+\frac{b}{v}$$, where a is the diameter of a molecule, and $$b=l-a$$, and $$v_{\prime}$$ is the velocity of light within the molecule, and v, the velocity in the free ether; or if $$\mu=\frac{v}{v_{\prime}}$$ then $$t=\frac{\mu a+b}{v}$$. In the ether the time would be $$t_{\prime}=\frac{a+b}{v}$$, hence

If now the ether remains fixed while the molecules are in motion, the mean distance traversed between encounters will no longer be $$a + b$$, but $$a + \alpha + b + \beta$$; where $$\alpha$$ is the distance the first molecule moves while light is passing through it, and $$/beta$$ is the distance the second one moves while light is moving between the two. If $$\theta$$ is the common velocity of the molecules then $$d=\frac{\theta}{v}\alpha$$, and $$\beta=\frac{\theta}{v-\theta}b$$. The time occupied is therefore $$\frac{a}{v_{\prime}}+\frac{b}{v-\theta}$$ or $$\frac{\mu a}{v}+\frac{b}{v-\theta}$$. The distance traversed in this time is $$a+b+\left(\frac{\mu a}{v}+\frac{b}{v-\theta}\right)\theta$$; therefore the resulting velocity $$v=\frac{a+b}{\frac{\mu a}{v}+\frac{b}{v-\theta}}+\theta$$.

Substituting the value of $$n=\frac{\mu a+b}{a+b}$$ and neglecting the higher powers of $$\frac{\theta}{v}$$, this becomes

But $$\frac{v}{n}$$ is the velocity of light in the stationary medium; the coefficient of $$\theta$$ is therefore the factor

It seems probable that this expression is more exact than Fresnel's; for when the particles of the moving medium are in actual contact, then the light must be accelerated by the full value of $$\theta$$; that is the factor must be 1, whereas $$\frac{n^{2}-1}{n^{2}}$$ can

title: Page:MichelsonMorley1886.djvu/2


text:
Page:MichelsonMorley1886.djvu/3

 Fresnel's statement amounts then to saying that the ether within a moving body remains stationary with the exception of the portions which are condensed around the particles. If this condensed atmosphere be insisted upon, every particle with its atmosphere may be regarded as a single body, and then the statement is, simply, that the ether is entirely unaffected by the motion of the matter which it permeates.

It will be recalled that Fizeau divided a pencil of light, issuing from a slit placed in the focus of a lens, into two parallel beams. These passed through two parallel tubes and then fell upon a second lens and were re-united at its focus where they fell upon a plane mirror. Here the rays crossed and were returned each through the other tube, and would again be brought to a focus by the first lens, on the slit, but for a plane parallel glass which reflected part of the light to a point where it could be examined by a lens.

At this point vertical interference fringes would be formed, the bright central fringe corresponding to equal paths. If now the medium is put in motion in opposite directions in the two tubes, and the velocity of light is affected by this motion, the two pencils will be affected in opposite ways, one being retarded and the other accelerated; hence the central fringe would be displaced and a simple calculation would show whether this displacement corresponds with the acceleration required by theory or not.

Notwithstanding the ingenuity displayed in this remarkable contrivance, which is apparently so admirably adopted for eliminating accidental displacement of the fringes by extraneous causes, there seems to be a general doubt concerning the results obtained, or at any rate the interpretation of these results given by Fizeau.

title: Page:MichelsonMorley1886.djvu/3