text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/337

king to Boulogne, and attended him at the meeting with the French commissioners for peace immediately after. On 1 Feb. 1493 he was given the wardship and marriage of Thomas, grandson and heir of Sir Thomas Delamere (Patent, 8 Hen. VII, p. 2, m. 10). On 19 July he lost his father, Sir John Guildford, a privy councillor like himself, who was buried in Canterbury Cathedral (, Funerall Monuments, 1st ed. p. 235). In the 9th Henry VII, being then sheriff of Kent, 100l. was given him for his charges in that office, and in the same year (1 Dec.) he had a new grant of the office of master of the armoury to him and his son Edward. In November 1494 he was at Westminster at the creation of the king's second son Henry as Duke of York. About 1495 he was named one of six commissioners to arrange with the Spanish ambassador about the marriage of Arthur and Catherine (Cal. State Papers, Spanish, i. No. 118). In the summer of that year, after Perkin Warbeck's attempt to land at Deal, he was sent by the king into Kent to thank the inhabitants for their loyalty. In the parliament which assembled in October following he was one of those members who announced to the chancellor the election of the speaker (Rolls of Parl. vi. 4586). In that parliament he obtained an act for disgavelling his lands in Kent (ib. p. 4876). About this time we find him mentioned as controller of the royal household (ib. p. 461), an office which his father had held before him, and one of his sons held after him. On 21 April 1496 he was made steward of the lands which had belonged to the Duchess of York in Surrey and Sussex; and in 12 Henry VII he was again appointed one of a set of trustees for the king in a deed confirmed in parliament (ib. vi. 5106).

On 17 June 1497 he assisted in defeating the Cornish rebels at Blackheath, for which service he was created a banneret. About this time he seems to have made an exchange of lands with two abbots in Kent and Sussex; for on 5 June two royal licenses were granted, the first to the abbot of Faversham, to enable him to acquire lands from any one of the annual value of 20l., and also to alienate twelve hundred acres in Cranbrook and Frittenden to Sir Richard Guildford; the second to the abbot of Robertsbridge, enabling him to acquire lands to the annual value of 40l., and to alienate to Sir Richard three thousand acres of salt marsh in the parishes of Playden, Iden, Ivychurch, Fairlight, Pett, and Broomhill. On 4 July 1498 the custody of the lands of Catherine Whitehed, an idiot, was granted to him and others. In 1499 he and Richard Hatton were commissioned by the king to go in quest of Edmund De la Pole, earl of Suffolk, after his first flight to the continent, and persuade him to come back. He had a further charge to go to the Archduke Philip; but so important was the bringing back of De la Pole that he was instructed to forego that journey if the refugee would not return without him. In 1500 he went over with the king to the meeting with the archduke at Calais. In the same year he was elected a knight of the Garter. In 1501, as controller of the household, he had much to do with the arrangements for the reception of Catherine of Arragon at her first arrival in England.

On 7 May 1503 his absence was excused at St. George's feast, which he appears to have pretty generally attended in other years. In 19 Henry VII his name occurs among the collectors appointed by parliament to levy the aid granted to the king on account of the creation of the late Prince Arthur, and of the marriage and conveyance of the Princess Margaret to Scotland (ib. vi. 538). In the same year (1504) he obtained an exemplification under the great seal of the act for disgavelling his lands, and of a proviso in his favour in the act of resumption 1 Henry VII.. On 4 April 1506 he had what was called a special pardon—really a discharge of liabilities in respect of his offices of master of the ordnance and of the armoury, and also as master of the horse (Patent, 21 Henry VII, pt. i. m. 30). About the same time, in 21 Henry VII, he had also some confirmations of former grants, and, according to Ellis, a grant of free warren in his manor of Cotmanton.

On 7 April in the same year he made his will. Next day he embarked at Rye along with John Whitby, prior of Gisburn in Yorkshire, on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. They landed next day in Normandy, and passed through France, Savoy, and the north of Italy to Venice, whence, after some stay, they sailed on 3 July. After visiting Crete and Cyprus on their way they reached Jaffa, on 18 Aug. But before they durst land they had to send a message to Jerusalem to the warden of Mount Sion, and they remained seven days in their galley till he came with the lords of Jerusalem and Rama, without whose escort no pilgrims were allowed to pass. Two more days were spent in debating the tribute to be paid by the company before they could be suffered to land, so that they only disembarked on 27 Aug. They were forced by the Mamelukes to spend a night and a day in a cave, and when allowed to proceed upon their journey both Guildford and the prior fell ill. They did reach Jerusalem, but the prior died there on 5 Sept.,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/358

 minster Hospital from 1834 till 1838, Thurnam was appointed medical superintendent of the Friends' retreat in York. That post he held until 1849. The Wiltshire county asylum at Devizes was then being built, and the committee selected Thurnam to be medical superintendent. It was opened in 1851, and he remained in active charge until his death.

Thurnam's leisure was devoted to the elucidation of the statistical facts of insanity and investigations of anthropological and antiquarian interest. He was twice elected president of the Medico-Psychological Association.

While at the Westminster Hospital he had gained some reputation from his observations on aneurism of the heart. In 1843 he published ‘Observations and Essays on the Statistics of Insanity, and on Establishments for the Insane.’ This work contained a reprint of the ‘Statistics of the York Retreat,’ first issued in 1841, together with an historical and descriptive sketch of that institution. Thurnam's work has proved a sure foundation for subsequent statistical studies of insanity. After his removal to Wiltshire he gave special consideration to craniology. In 1865, with Dr. Joseph Barnard Davis [q. v.], he published a work in two volumes under the title ‘Crania Britannica,’ and the same year he wrote an important paper on the ‘Two Principal Forms of Ancient British and Gaulish Skulls,’ which was reprinted from the ‘Memoirs’ of the Anthropological Society of London (vol. i.), 1865. Thurnam was indefatigable in exploring ancient British barrows, and communicated his results to the Society of Antiquaries (of which he was a fellow) in 1869. During the later years of his life he collected a large number of skulls and objects of antiquity. The former were transferred to the university of Cambridge, the latter are in the British Museum. Although later authorities are of opinion that craniology affords no trustworthy data for ethnical classifications, yet ethnology has still to depend mainly upon comparative tables of cranial capacity and the form of the skulls of different races, and even of different individuals. In this respect Thurnam's work is of enduring value. Two short papers deserve mention, one on ‘Synostoses of the Cranial Bones regarded as a Race Character’ (Nat. Hist. Rev. 1865), and the other on the ‘Weight of the Human Brain’ (Journ. of Ment. Science, 1868). Thurnam recognised the importance of the obliteration of the sutures of the skull, which he had observed in the dolichocephalous crania of the stone age, but not in the brachycephalous crania of the bronze period. His conclusion was that this is a strictly race character.

Thurnam died at Devizes on 24 Sept. 1873. On 18 June 1851 he was married to Frances Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Wyatt, a metropolitan police magistrate, and sister of Sir Matthew Digby Wyatt [q. v.] By her he left three sons.

[Obituary notices in Journal of Mental Science, 1873, Medical Times and Gazette, and Wilts Archæol. Mag.; family information; personal knowledge.]  THURSBY, JOHN (d. 1373), archbishop of York. [See .]

THURSTAN or TURSTIN (d. 1140), archbishop of York, was son of Anger or Auger, prebendary of St. Paul's, London, by his wife Popelina. His brother Audoen succeeded to his father's prebend, was bishop of Evreux, and died in 1139. Thurstan was a native of Bayeux, and a prebendary of St. Paul's ( ap. ii. 30;, Repertorium, i. 141, 169; Gallia Christiana, xi. 573; , col. 858). He was a clerk in the household and a favourite of William Rufus, became the secretary of Henry I, was much trusted by him, and, among other duties, was specially employed in entertaining the king's ecclesiastical guests. The see of York being vacant by the death of Archbishop Thomas (d. 1114) [q. v.], the king nominated Thurstan as his successor—it is said with the approval of Ralph d'Escures (d. 1122) [q. v.], archbishop of Canterbury—and he was elected at Winchester on 15 Aug. 1114, being then in subdeacon's orders (, Historia Novorum, col. 496; sub an.)

Thurstan at once spoke to the king about the profession of obedience to the archbishop of Canterbury, and the king did not command him to make it. After being ordained deacon by the bishop of Winchester, he was enthroned at York, visited Durham, where he had an interview with Turgot [q. v.], bishop of St. Andrews, who was then dying, and the church of Hexham, and then returned to his own diocese. Two summonses came to him from Archbishop Ralph bidding him come to Canterbury to be ordained priest and consecrated bishop. Thurstan asked the advice of his chapter about the profession; they declared that they would leave the matter to him, and would uphold him if he refused it. He said that he would go to Rome, and would act as the pope might direct. Having, though still unconsecrated, received a promise of obedience from his clergy, he went to

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


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/359

 the king at Rouen, arriving there at Christmas, and asked leave to go to Rome. Archbishop Ralph, however, had already talked with the king, and Henry refused to let him go. Conon, the cardinal-bishop of Præneste, was then acting as legate in Normandy, and Henry consulted him as to what should be done, as Ralph refused to consecrate Thurstan without the profession. Conon advised that he should at once be ordained priest, and then sent to Rome for consecration. He received priest's orders from Ranulf Flambard [q. v.], bishop of Durham, at Bayeux, but was not allowed to go to Rome, and after Whitsuntide 1115 returned to England. However, both he and the York chapter sent messengers to the pope requesting that he might be freed from the profession. In a great council held by the king at Michaelmas Thurstan complained of the delay of his consecration, and Henry bade him request Ralph to consecrate him in the presence of competent witnesses. Accordingly, taking with him the archbishop of Rouen, the bishops of Lisieux and Durham, and others, Thurstan made his request to Ralph, who answered that he would do so willingly if he would make the profession, but this Thurstan refused. About that time Ivo, bishop of Chartres, who had a great regard for Thurstan (Ep. 215), wrote to Paschal II, praying him to put an end to the dispute by sanctioning Thurstan's refusal (Ep. 276). In January 1116 Paschal replied to an application from the York chapter confirming their election, forbidding the profession, and ordering that, if Ralph refused to consecrate Thurstan, the rite should be performed by suffragan-bishops of York. When the king heard that the pope's interference had been invoked without his consent, he was very wroth, and at the great council held at Salisbury in March sent the Count of Meulan and others to Thurstan bidding him make the profession. He refused, and was summoned before the king, who told him that he must either obey or resign, whereupon, placing his hand on that of the king, he resigned the archbishopric, declaring that he would never seek it again (, cols. 496–7; sub an.) Nevertheless, he soon repented of his determination, and after Easter accompanied the king to Normandy, repeating his request to be allowed to go to Rome. His resignation, though operative as regards his right to the temporalities, did not annul his election. The king therefore did not order another election, but refused his request; for he knew that if he let him go he would be consecrated by the pope. Thurstan remained with the court in Normandy. He was supported in 1117 by a deputation from the York chapter, and the king, on a renewal of Thurstan's request, replied that he would do nothing until the archbishop of Canterbury should return from Rome, whither he had gone on this matter with the king's consent. Ralph returned without having met with success. The York chapter sent another letter to the pope on Thurstan's behalf, complaining that, through the instrumentality of Ralph and his suffragans, he had been kept in exile from his church for a year and a half. In consequence of this the legate Anselm received a letter from Paschal to the king directing him to restore Thurstan to his church, and promising to adjudicate upon the dispute. Another letter was directed to Ralph, ordering him to consecrate without the profession. Henry restored Thurstan, who returned to York.

Ralph's return, however, was delayed, and in January 1118 Paschal died. The new pope, Gelasius II, was warmly on Thurstan's side. He wrote to Henry bidding him send both Ralph and Thurstan to him, and sent summonses to both of them to come to him. Thurstan was anxious to press his cause, and, as he had not the king's leave to cross the sea, embarked at Dover in disguise, and went to Henry at Rouen about Christmastide. He complained that Ralph was keeping away from England in order to avoid consecrating him. He met Ralph and gave him the pope's letter. Hearing that Gelasius had appointed to meet the French king at Tours, he asked the king to allow him to go thither, and was refused. He obtained the good will of Louis VI, who was ready to take any opportunity of embarrassing Henry. In January 1119 Gelasius died. He was succeeded by Calixtus II, who espoused Thurstan's cause as strongly as his predecessor had done, while Louis and Fulk, count of Anjou, also did what they could for him by refusing to allow Ralph to pass through their dominions to go to the pope. Henry, finding that Thurstan's cause was supported by his enemies, tried in Lent to persuade him to return to England, but he refused; and the king then asked him to promise to go after Easter, but he answered evasively and stayed on in Normandy. The pope summoned him to attend the council to be held at Rheims, and Henry allowed him to go on his promising that he would not on any account receive consecration from the pope (, col. 503). He met the pope at Tours on 22 Sept., and in his company visited Blois and Paris, being received cordially by the magnates of France. During the pope's


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/360

 stay at these places he was twice solicited by a deputation from the York chapter to consecrate Thurstan; and, though he had promised Henry that he would not do so, he nevertheless consecrated Thurstan at Rheims on Sunday, 20 Oct., the day before the council was to open, many French bishops assisting at the rite, though the archbishop of Lyons refused to obey the pope's order that he should be present; for he held that a wrong was done to the see of Canterbury. John, the archdeacon of Canterbury, who was with the pope, loudly protested in the presence of the assembled bishops against the consecration (ib. col. 504; ). The English and Norman bishops, who arrived the next day, bitterly reproached Thurstan for his deceitful conduct, would not hold any intercourse with him, and in the king's name forbad him to enter any of Henry's dominions. Henry declared that he should never set foot in England until he had made the profession. On 1 Nov. he received the pall from the pope, who bade him keep the grant secret for the present.

In order to pave the way for a reconciliation with Henry, Thurstan busied himself in attempts to arrange a peace between the kings of England and France. At a meeting between Henry and the pope at Gisors Calixtus begged the king to allow Thurstan to occupy his see in peace; but Henry would not yield, and on his return to England disseised the archbishop of his estates. Thurstan remained with the pope. He was treated with great consideration by the cardinals and others of the papal court, took part in deliberations and judicial proceedings as though he had been a cardinal, and assisted the pope in the dedications of altars and churches. While he was with the pope at Gap, on Ash Wednesday 1120, it was decided that the church of York should be freed from the profession, and a bull was issued to that effect. At Thurstan's request the pope gave him some relics for his church and some holy oil, and granted him leave to use the pall while he was in exile. Thurstan then took his leave, being escorted on the first stage of his journey by a number of cardinals and bishops. He visited Adela, countess of Blois, and her son Theobald, and was hospitably entertained at Rheims by Ralph (d. 1124), the archbishop of that see. At Soissons he met the legate Conon, and, after consulting with him, judged it well to abstain from attending the court which Louis was about to hold at Senlis, and again visited the Countess of Blois, celebrating mass with his pall on Easter day at Coulommiers, and going with the countess to Marcigny, where she took the veil. Meanwhile the pope pressed Henry on Thurstan's behalf, and an interview took place between the king and the legate Conon at Château Landon, near Nemours, on the Sunday after Ascension day, Thurstan, at Henry's request, being near at hand. The king was finding the archbishop extremely useful to him in negotiating with France, and was therefore inclined in his favour (, Historia Regum, c. 199). During the discussion Conon brought Thurstan to Henry, who reinvested him with the archbishopric, and gave him leave to enter Normandy on his promising that he would keep out of England until Michaelmas, when the king proposed to come to a final settlement. At Michaelmas Thurstan could not be spared to return to England, as he was engaged on the king's business. He attended the council that the legate held at Beauvais in October, and at its close Henry, in an interview with Conon at Gisors, promised that he would obey the pope's wishes with respect to him, saying that he would rather have lost five hundred marks than have been without him. Thurstan hoped to have crossed with the king in November; but Henry bade him stay until after Christmas, that he might take advice with his council (ib.), and he therefore visited Chartres. At Christmas Henry summoned Archbishop Ralph and the bishops to a council, and caused to be read to them a letter from Calixtus directed to him and Ralph, in which the pope threatened to lay England under an interdict unless Thurstan was restored to his church without making profession, and appears also to have laid the matter before the magnates of the kingdom generally. It was unanimously decided that he should be recalled, though, it is said, on the condition that he was to celebrate no divine office outside his diocese until he had satisfied the church of Canterbury (ib.; ;, cols. 515–516). The messenger bearing his recall found him at Rouen. He crossed on 30 Jan., went to the king and queen at Windsor, was well received, and shortly afterwards proceeded to York, where he was met by a great procession of men of all orders, lay and clerical, and was welcomed with much rejoicing.

Thurstan celebrated his return by remitting certain fees paid by the churches of his diocese for the consecrated chrism, and strictly forbade his clergy to demand payment for burials, extreme unction, and baptism. At Michaelmas Henry called on him to make profession to Ralph personally, but on his producing the privilege granted by Calixtus the matter was dropped. Thurstan was himself vainly demanding a profession from John,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/361

 ordained bishop of Glasgow by Paschal in 1115, and in 1122 excommunicated him. John appealed to the pope, was unsuccessful, but nevertheless did not profess. Thurstan requested the king to allow him to attend the council summoned by Calixtus, and was bidden to wait until the new archbishop of Canterbury should also go to Rome. William of Corbeil [see ] having been elected archbishop, Thurstan proposed to consecrate him, but objected to acknowledge him as primate of all England, and William was therefore consecrated by his suffragans on 18 Feb. 1123 (, c. 206). Both the archbishops went to Rome; Thurstan arrived there first, and when William came he found that serious objections were raised against granting the pall. The York historian (Hugh) asserts that it was only through Thurstan's intercession that he received it, but that need not be believed (ib. c. 208). William, having received the pall, complained to the pope of the injury done to his see in the York matter. Thurstan said that he could not make answer because he had not brought the muniments of his church with him, and it is asserted, on the other hand, that the Canterbury people could not give a satisfactory account of their privileges. The pope bade them both exhibit their privileges in a council to be held in England before papal legates. Nothing, however, appears to have been settled as regards their dispute during the legation of John of Crema in 1125, and both archbishops again visited Rome. Before Thurstan left, the king bade him put the two sees in the same position as in his father's day, and met with a refusal. Thurstan travelled with his brother, Bishop Audoen, and the legate, and, as John of Crema was taking much money to Rome and had many enemies, they took a route different from that by which the English usually travelled, and met with much inconvenience and delay, so that they did not reach Rome until three weeks after Archbishop William. Honorius II gave William a legatine commission, and the York account represents Thurstan as advocating this measure in obedience to the king's order. No agreement was made with reference to the old dispute; and the grant of the legation to William put Thurstan in a worse position. While he was in Rome he found John, bishop of Glasgow, at the papal court, and laid a complaint against him and against the bishops of Scotland generally, for they, in conjunction with David I [q. v.], were desirous of getting rid of the claims of the see of York and making their church dependent only on Rome. A day was appointed for hearing the suit against Bishop John; it was afterwards put off to a later date, and John seems never to have acknowledged the authority of York.

When Thurstan went to the assembly that the king held at Westminster at Christmas 1126 [see under ], he was informed by Henry that the archbishop of Canterbury would not allow him to have his cross borne erect or to take part in placing the crown on the king's head, and was forced to submit. In 1127 he was summoned by William to a council that he held as legate; he did not attend, but sent a sufficient excuse (Cont. sub an.) In compliance with the request of the king of Scotland he in 1128 consecrated Robert (d. 1159) [q. v.], a canon of York, as bishop of St. Andrews, without requiring from him any profession of obedience. As John of Glasgow assisted at the coronation, it may be supposed that Thurstan and he had made up their quarrel. On 1 Aug. 1129 Thurstan attended the council that Archbishop William held at London ( sub an.) He was consulted by Richard [see under d. 1139], then prior of St. Mary's at York, in 1132, and in consequence visited that house, removed from it Richard and his twelve friends, who were anxious to lead a stricter life, gave them a piece of land on which they settled, and where they founded the Cistercian abbey of Fountains. He received the thanks of St. Bernard for his kindness to these monks. In 1133 he gained a new suffragan by the creation of the see of Carlisle, to which, on 6 Aug., he consecrated Aldulf, prior of Nostell, near Wakefield, as the first bishop. He did not take part in the coronation of Stephen ( Historia Novella, i. c. 461), but attended his court at Easter 1136. A fire did some damage to his cathedral church on 8 June 1137. As David of Scotland was in that year preparing to invade England, Thurstan, though much weakened by age, met him at Roxburgh, and prevailed on him to agree to a truce until Stephen's return from Normandy in December. The see of Canterbury being then vacant, he presided over the prelates at a council that the king held at Northampton on 10 April 1138 (Cont. ) When, for the second time in that year, the Scots invaded the north of England, and, having overrun the bishopric of Durham, appeared in Yorkshire, Thurstan met the lords of the shire at York, and, finding them discouraged because the king could give them no help, animated them by his counsel to resist the invaders, promised that the parish priests of the diocese should lead


text: Pierre/Book 15

title: Pierre/Book 15


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/45

 Bourne merit of mine, I have the comfort of this reflection—I have given no scandal to it by my meanness and unworthiness.' Bourne died on 2 Dec. 1747, and was buried at Fulham. He had written his own epitaph : 'Pietatis sinceræ summæque humilitatis, nec Dei usquam immemor nec sui, in silentium quod amavit descendit V. B.' From his will we learn that he had a son who was a lieutenant in the marines. A careful edition of Bourne's poems, with a memoir by the Rev. John Mitford, was published in 1840.

[Southey's Life and Works of Cowper, iii. 226, iv. 97-8, vi. 201 ; Welch's Alumni Westmonasterienses, ed. 1852, pp. 252, 264; Nichols's Literary Anecdotes, viii. 428 n.; Nichols's Literary Illustrations, vii. 656-7; Aikin's Life of Addison, ii. 214; Bourne's Poemata, ed. Mitford, 1840.]  BOURNE or BOURN, WILLIAM (d. 1583), mathematician, was the son of William Bourne of Gravesend, who died 1560. The earliest mention of the mathematician is in the first charter of incorporation of Gravesend, granted 22 July 1562, where he appears on the list of jurats of the town. His name is also repeated in the same capacity in the second charter, granted 5 June 1568. It is worthy of remark that the only records of the measures taken for the regulation of the traders of the town under the authority of the second charter are in the handwriting of Bourne. In one of the presentments of a jury, touching the office of clerk of the market, drawn up by him in a tabular form, 15 March 1571, he records his own name as Mr. Bourne, portreve, one of fourteen of the 'Innholders and Tiplers that were amerced for selling Beer and Ale in Pots of Stone and Cans not being quarts full measure' (, p. 208). The fine inflicted upon Bourne was 'vid .' This serves to show that, according to the practice of the period, he engaged in business as an inn-keeper. In 'A note of all the inhabitants, reseant [i.e. resident] and dwelling in the parishes of Gravesend and Milton the 20th Sept. 1572-3,' his name appears once more as one of the jurats, and as having paid for his freedom of the Mercers' Company (, 197). In the dedication of his 'Treasure for Travellers' to Sir William Winter, he writes : 'I have most largely tasted of your benevolence towards me being as a poore gunner serving under your worthiness.' In book iii. cap. 9 of the same work he describes himself as being 'neither Naupeger or Ship-carpenter, neither usuall Seaman.' From these passages it is clear that 'he was not a seaman by profession ; as the offices of his patron were of a general nature, not to be discharged at sea, it may be that Bourne served under him on shore, perhaps as one of the gunners of Gravesend bulwark, which he has delineated and referred to in more than one of his works. These, from internal evidence, appear to have been written at Gravesend, his native town. He wrote : 1. 'An Almanacke and prognostication for iii yeres, with serten Rules of navigation,' 1567 (, i. 336). 2. 'An Almanacke and prognostication for iii years. . . now newly added vnto my late rules of navigation that was printed iiii years past. Practised at Gravesend, for the meridian of London by William Bourne, student of the mathematical sciences,' T. Purfoot, imp. 1571 (, 996). 3. 'An Almanacke for ten yeares beginning at the yeare 1581, with certaine necessarie Rules,' R. Watkins with J. Roberts, imp. 1580 (, 1025). 4. ' A Regiment of the Sea : conteyning. . . Rules, Mathematical experiences, and perfect Knowledge of Navigation for all Coastes and Countreys : most needfull and necessarie for all Seafaring Men and Travellers, as Pilots, Mariners, Merchants, &c.,' T. Dawson and T. Gardyner for Iohn Wight, imp. [1573]. It is dedicated to the Earl of Lincoln, lord high admiral, whose arms are given in his flag flying at the maintop of a large ship-of-war on the title-page. This work, by which Bourne is best known, passed through several editions, viz., 1580, posthumous 1584, 1587, 1592 (corrected by T. Hood), 1596, and 1643. 5. 'A booke called the Treasure for Travellers, divided into five Bookes or partes, conteynyng very necessary matters, for all sortes of Travailers, eyther by Sea or Lande,' Thomas Woodcocke, imp. 1578. It is dedicated to 'Syr William Winter, knight, Maister of the Queenes Maiesties Ordinaunce by Sea, Survaior of her highnesse marine causes,' whose arms and crest are given on verso of the title-page. 6. Another edition, under the title of 'A Mate for Mariners,' 1641 (, p. 209). 7. 'The Arte of Shooting in great Ordnance, conteyning very necessary matters for all sortes of Servitoures, eyther by Sea or by Lande,' Thos. Woodcocke, imp. 1587. It is dedicated to 'Lord Ambrose Dudley, Earle of Warwick. . . Generall of the Queen's Maiesties Ordnance within her highnesse Realme and Dominions.' Other editions, 1596 and 1643. That 1587 is not the date of its composition is certain, as the license for printing was granted to H. Bynnemann 22 July 1578 (, 992 ;, 2, 150) ; moreover it is referred to in Bourne's next work : 8. 'Inventions or Devises ; Very necessary for all Generalles and Captaines, or Leaders of men, as wel by Sea as by Land,' Thos. Woodcocke,


text: Pierre/Book 16

title: Pierre/Book 16


text:
Page:Collected Works of Dugald Stewart Volume 1.djvu/48

30 freedom of thought on topics not strictly theological, formed a prominent feature in the character of Calvin. A curious instance of it occurs in one of his letters, where he discusses an ethical question of no small moment in the science of political economy:—"How far it is consistent with morality to accept of interest for a pecuniary loan?" On this question, which, even in Protestant countries, continued, till a very recent period, to divide the opinions both of divines and lawyers, Calvin treats the authority of Aristotle, and that of the Church, with equal disregard. To the former, he opposes a close and logical argument, not unworthy of Mr. Bentham. To the latter he replies, by shewing, that the Mosaic law on this point was not a moral but a municipal prohibition; a prohibition not to be judged of from any particular text of Scripture, but upon the principles of natural equity. The example of these two Fathers of the Reformation, would probably have been followed by consequences still greater and more immediate, if Melanchthon had not unfortunately given the sanction of his name to the doctrines of the Peripatetic school; but still, among the Reformers in general, the credit of these doctrines gradually declined, and a spirit of research and of improvement prevailed. The invention of printing, which took place very nearly at the same time with the fall of the Eastern Empire, besides adding greatly to the efficacy of the causes above-mentioned, must have been attended with very important effects of its own, on the progress of the human mind. For us who have been


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/362

 their parishioners to battle, said that he hoped himself to be in the fight, and gave the coming campaign the character of a crusade. In obedience to his counsel the forces of the shire gathered at York, where, after a three days' fast, he gave them absolution and his benediction. He wished to be carried in his litter with the host, for he was too weak to ride, but the lords persuaded him to stay at home and pray for their success, so he gave them his cross and the banner of St. Peter of York to carry with them, sent his men with the army along with Ralph (d. 1144?) [q. v.], bishop of Orkney, and remained at York, while the army that he had gathered routed the Scots at the battle of the Standard on 22 Aug. 1138.

Anselm, abbot of St. Edmunds, having been elected to the see of London, Thurstan upheld the party among the canons opposed to him, and, being requested by the pope to say what he thought of him, wrote that he was more fit to be deprived of his abbacy than promoted to a see (, i. 250). He was prevented by infirmity from attending the council held by the legate Alberic on 6 Dec., and sent the dean of York to represent him. He desired in 1139 to resign his see, and, it is said, to secure his brother Audoen as his successor, and for this purpose, as well as to excuse his non-attendance at the pope's council, sent Richard, abbot of Fountains, to Rome. Audoen, however, died in this year at Merton priory in Surrey, where he had assumed the habit of a canon. St. Bernard wrote to Thurstan dissuading him from his idea of resignation, and advising him while retaining his see to live an ascetic life (Opera, i. 297). A compiled account of him records that he made a pilgrimage to Palestine, but the assertion lacks confirmation, is probably based on a misreading, and cannot in any case be true of a time when he was worn out by age (Vita apud Historians of York, ii. 267). Finding that his end was near, Thurstan called to remembrance a vow that he had made in his youth at Cluny to enter the Cluniac order; having called the clergy of his church together into his chapel, he made solemn confession before them, and received the discipline from them, and after this set out, in company with the elder clergy and many laymen, for the Cluniac priory at Pontefract, where, on 26 Jan. 1140, he was admitted into the convent and received the monastic habit. On 6 Feb. he felt himself dying, and, in the presence of the elder clergy, who seem to have remained with him, and the monks, he caused the vigils for the dead to be performed, as though he already lay dead, himself taking the ninth lectio, and reciting the versicle ‘Dies iræ, dies illa.’ When lauds were ended he died while the assembled monks were praying. He was buried before the high altar of the priory church. Some days afterwards Geoffrey Turcople or Trocope, archdeacon of Nottingham, beheld him in a vision, and received from him the assurance of his well-being. A year later his body was found undecayed.

Thurstan was a man of deep piety and of monastic aceticism, being extremely sparing in eating and drinking, wearing a hair-shirt, and otherwise mortifying his flesh. His character was probably emotional, for he was endowed with ‘the grace of tears’ specially when celebrating the mass, and he exercised a strong influence on ladies, many of high rank, as the Countess of Blois, being his affectionate and obedient disciples. To the poor he was pitiful and liberal. That he was remarkably courageous and persevering is shown in his long conflict with the see of Canterbury, supported by the royal authority. The independence of his see was an object worthy of the sacrifices he made to gain it, specially if the struggle is regarded in the light of the time; the exile, loss of wealth, and other troubles that he manfully endured in the cause, and the success that crowned his efforts, as well as his personal character, justly endeared him to the people of the north, and gave him a position of extraordinary influence among them. He used that influence on a memorable occasion to arouse a patriotic sentiment and deliver the north from a cruel invasion. Yet in the progress of his struggle with Canterbury he certainly did not scruple to ally himself with the enemies of his own king, and he was guilty of a breach of faith in receiving consecration from Calixtus. He was a generous benefactor to the churches and clergy of his diocese, to York, Hexham, Ripon, Beverley, and Southwell, and founded new prebends in the last-named three churches, and he was careful in the selection of his clergy (ib.) and in the promotion of their interests (Historians of York, ii. 386). In the troubles that soon followed his death men looked back with regret to the peace and prosperity enjoyed by the clergy and tenants of the see during his episcopate. For the clergy were not the only recipients of privileges from him; his charter to the rising town of Beverley was based on that granted by Henry to York; it confirmed the customs of the burghers and granted them a hans-house and exemption from toll (, Select Charters, p. 105). He was largely concerned in the growth of monasticism in the north during his episcopate, and is said to have founded eight reli-


text: Pierre/Book 17

title: Pierre/Book 17


text: Pierre/Book 18

title: Pierre/Book 18


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/363

 gious houses (Historians of York, ii. 267), though this is probably an exaggeration. He certainly founded the nunnery of Clementhorp, near York (Monasticon, iv. 323), and may perhaps be said to have founded Fountains Abbey. The foundation of St. Leonard's Hospital at York has been ascribed to him (, i. 100), but it existed as St. Peter's Hospital before his time; he obtained grants to it from Henry I; it was burnt in the fire of 1137; and was rebuilt by Stephen with a dedication to St. Leonard (Monasticon, vi. 609). His influence, however, was great with Walter Espec [q. v.], William Paganel [see under ], and other founders of monasteries in the north.

The works attributed to Thurstan by Bale (Cent. ii. 185) are: 1. ‘De origine Fontanensis cœnobii’ (either a mistake for the work of Hugh of Kirkstall; see Monasticon, v. 293, and fully in Memorials of Fountains Abbey, edited by Raine; or else is identical with Thurstan's long and interesting letter to William, archbishop of Canterbury, on the subject printed in the same book). 2. ‘De suo primatu ad Calixtum,’ a matter on which he doubtless wrote much to that pope. 3. ‘Contra juniorem Anselmum,’ probably a reference to the extract from a letter preserved by Diceto and noticed above. Bale adds, ‘Et quædam alia,’ of which nothing is known. A constitution of his ‘De debitis defunctorum Clericorum’ is printed in Wilkins's ‘Concilia’ (i. 412).

[A full life of Thurstan is given in Raine's Fasti Ebor.; it is written with some bias in his favour and on the York side in the dispute with the see of Canterbury, being founded on the life by Hugh the Chantor, or precentor, and archdeacon of York, a contemporary of Thurstan, which is printed in Historians of York, vol. ii. (Rolls Ser.) In the same volume are a letter from Archbishop Ralph to Calixtus complaining of Thurstan, also printed by Twysden; a short life of Thurstan, made up partly of verses by Hugh of Pontefract and Geoffrey Turcople, and partly of prose by a late writer, and of little value, and a chronicle of the Archbishops of York, also printed by Twysden as the work of T. Stubbs, and, so far as Thurstan is concerned, mainly founded on the life by Hugh the Chantor. Also on the York side are Richard of Hexham, ed. Twysden, and John of Hexham, ed. Twysden, and ap. Opp. Symeonis Dunelm. (Rolls Ser.), both also in Raine's Hexham Priory (Surtees Soc. pp. 44, 46). The Canterbury side is represented in Eadmer's Hist. Nov. ed. Migne; see also Chron. Mailros, ed. Gale; Flor. Wig. with Cont. (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Sym. Dunelm. Will. of Malmesbury's Gesta Pontiff. Hen. Huntingdon, Gervase of Cant., R. de Diceto (all Rolls Ser); S. Bernardi Opp. ed. 1690; Ailred's De Bello Standardi, ed. Twysden; Walbran's Memorials of Fountains (Surtees Soc. pp 42, 67). There is a life of Thurstan in C. Henriquez's Phœnix Reviviscens (1626).]  THURSTON, JOHN (1774–1822), draughtsman, was born at Scarborough in 1774, and commenced his career as a copperplate engraver, working under James Heath [q. v.], whom he assisted on two of his chief plates, ‘The Death of Major Peirson,’ after Copley, and ‘The Dead Soldier,’ after Wright of Derby. He then took up wood-engraving and eventually devoted himself exclusively to designing book illustrations, in which he was highly successful, and most of the editions of the poets and novelists published during the first twenty years of the present century, especially those issued by the Chiswick Press, were embellished by his pencil. Many of Thurston's drawings were engraved on copper for Sharpe's and Cooke's classics and similar works, but the bulk of them, drawn on the block, were cut by Clennell, Branston, Nesbit, Thompson, and other able wood-engravers. Among his designs of this class are the illustrations to Thomson's ‘Seasons,’ 1805; Beattie's ‘Minstrel,’ 1807; Thomas's ‘Religious Emblems,’ 1809 (a much admired work, which was reissued in 1816 and published in Germany in 1818); Shakespeare's works, 1814; Somerville's ‘Rural Sports,’ 1814; Puckle's ‘Club,’ 1817; Falconer's ‘Shipwreck,’ 1817; and Savage's ‘Hints on Decorative Printing,’ 1822. Thurston's drawings were graceful and pleasing, though somewhat artificial and admirably adapted to the wood-engraver's art, which was carried to its greatest perfection under his influence. He was elected an associate of the Water-colour Society in 1806, but contributed only to the exhibition of that year, sending five Shakespearean groups; he was also an occasional exhibitor at the Royal Academy from 1794 to 1812. Being of delicate constitution and retired habits, Thurston was personally little known; he died at his house at Holloway, London, in 1822, his life being shortened by excessive devotion to his art. He had two sons, G. and J. Thurston, who practised as artists and occasionally exhibited at the Royal Academy.

[Redgrave's Dict. of Artists; Jackson and Chatto's Hist. of Wood Engraving; Linton's Masters of Wood Engraving; Nagler's Künstler-Lexikon; Annual Biography and Obituary, 1823.]  THURSTON, JOHN BATES (1836–1897), colonial governor, eldest son of John Noel Thurston of Bath, and Eliza West, was born in London on 31 Jan. 1836. He was educated at a private school in the


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vol 30 ABBE to ENGLISH HISTORY

 * valign="top"|
 * Title page
 * Copyright notice
 * Dedication
 * ../Editorial Preface/
 * Table of abbreviations
 * Table of contributors
 * valign="top"|
 * A — Arbitration
 * Arbuthnot — Baring
 * Barker — Bissolati-Bergamaschi
 * valign="top"|
 * Bitter — Brown
 * Browne — Carrel
 * Carson — Conrad
 * valign="top"|
 * Cons — Deakin
 * Deane — Edward
 * Edwardes — English History
 * }


text: Pierre/Book 19

title: Pierre/Book 19


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bertolini, Pietro

BERTOLINI, PIETRO (1853-1920), Italian statesman, was born at Montebelluna in 1853. He began his career as a barrister and student of economic and administrative questions, and entered parliament in 1891 as member for his native town. Two years later he became Under-Secretary for Finance in the Crispi Cabinet. He was afterwards Under-Secretary at the Ministry of the Interior in the Pelloux Cabinet (1898-1900), in which he was, so to speak, the representative of Baron Sonnino's party. On the fall of Gen. Pelloux he hoped to return to office in a future Sonnino ministry; but as the latter seemed ever less likely to become a reality, Bertolini lost patience and joined Sig. Giolitti. His conduct in abandoning his old chief was much criticised at the time, but his new patron chose him as Minister of Public Works in the Cabinet of 1907. He proved a capable administrator, but his qualities were taxed to the utmost by the terrible earthquake at Messina and Reggio in 1908. When Giolitti returned to power in 1911 he did not at first offer an appointment to Bertolini, but in the autumn of 1912 he entrusted him with the newly constituted Ministry of the Colonies. He failed, however, to show any exceptional qualifications for that position, and did little more than introduce some of the less desirable features of the Italian bureaucratic system into the new African possessions; the continued resistance of the Arabs in Libya was generally regarded as largely due to Bertolini's administrative errors. He was rapporteur for the extended suffrage bill, which first came into force with the general elections of 1913; the measure had been introduced to please the demagogic spirit which Giolitti wished to conciliate, but Bertolini must be given credit for the ingeniousness of the machinery which he devised for enabling illiterates to vote and for

avoiding electoral corruption as far as possible. On the outbreak of the World War Bertolini, as a faithful Giolittian, was an uncompromising neutralist, and came in for much obloquy in consequence. Throughout the war he remained in retirement, and failed to be reflected in 1919. Sig. Nitti appointed him senator and president of the Italian delegation on the Reparations Commission. He was the author of several valuable works on political and economic questions, notably a volume on local government in England. He died at Turin, Nov. 28 1920.


text: Pierre/Book 20

title: Pierre/Book 20


text: Pierre/Book 21

title: Pierre/Book 21


text: Pierre/Book 22

title: Pierre/Book 22


text: Pierre/Book 23

title: Pierre/Book 23


text:
Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/15

9 the people to their present ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption; an ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption that are best illustrated in the simple fact that they do sustain the governments that have so oppressed, degraded, and corrupted them. They do nothing towards proving that the governments themselves are legitimate; or that they ought to be sustained, or even endured, by those who understand their true character. The mere fact, therefore, that a government chances to be sustained by a majority, of itself proves nothing that is necessary to be proved, in order to know whether such government should be sustained, or not.

Seventh. The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that—however bloody—can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.

III.

But to say that the consent of either the strongest party, or the most numerous party, in a nation, is a sufficient justification for the establishment or maintenance of a government that shall control the whole nation, does not obviate the difficulty. The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a nation" to exist? How do many millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory—each gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized also, by that law, to defend his own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to the assistance and defence of any

title: Page:No Treason, v1.djvu/15


text: Pierre/Book 24

title: Pierre/Book 24


text: Pierre/Book 25

title: Pierre/Book 25


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Besant, Annie

BESANT, ANNIE (1847-      ), English theosophist, was born in London Oct. 1 1847, the daughter of William Page Wood. She married in 1867 the Rev. Frank Besant (d. 1917), afterwards vicar of Sibsey, Lincs., but obtained a separation from her husband in 1873. She had become an ardent free-thinker, and shortly afterwards she was prosecuted and convicted, together with Charles Bradlaugh (see 4.372), for publishing “blasphemous” literature. From 1874 to 1888 she worked in close association with Bradlaugh both in politics and in free-thought propaganda, as a lecturer and a writer of pamphlets over the signature of “Ajax.” Her increasing tendency towards socialism of the more revolutionary type occasioned a divergence between them after 1885, which was completed in 1889 by her adhesion to the Theosophical Society. She became a devoted pupil of Mme. Blavatsky (see 4.48), founded schools at Benares, and was elected president of the Theosophical Society in 1907. In later years her activities again assumed a political cast. She founded the Indian Home Rule League and became its president in 1916, and in 1917 she was president of the Indian National Congress. In addition to her numerous free-thought pamphlets and a large number of later works on theosophy, she published her Autobiography in 1893, The Religious Problem in India (1902) and other books.


text: Pierre/Book 26

title: Pierre/Book 26


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Beseler, Hans von

BESELER, HANS VON (1850-      ), Prussian general and governor of Poland during the German occupation, was born April 27 1850 at Greifswald. He was one of those generals who, after having been placed upon the retired list, were recalled in 1914 to assume important commands. He conducted the siege of Antwerp, which he occupied on Oct. 9 1914. In 1915 he was employed on the eastern front, and on Aug. 19 of that year took Novogeorgievsk. From Aug. 27 1915 to Nov. 1918 he was German governor-general of Poland at Warsaw, in which capacity he endeavoured with diminishing success to organize a form of Polish national government and representation under German auspices, as also to form a Polish army under German control. The Armistice and the German Revolution put an end to the complicated attempts of Beseler and the Austrians to arrive at a modus vivendi with regard to Poland's political and territorial destiny. The revolutionary Soldiers' Councils asserted themselves, and the German governor-general with the German troops of occupation left the country.


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thorpe, John (1682-1750)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thorpe, John (1715-1792)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thorpe, Robert de (fl.1290)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thorpe, Robert de (d.1372)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thorpe, Thomas (d.1461)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thorpe, Thomas (1570?-1635?)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thorpe, William de


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thorpe, William (d.1407?)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Threlkeld, Caleb


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thring, Edward


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


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Throckmorton, Job


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Throckmorton, John


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Throckmorton, Nicholas


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Throsby, John


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thrupp, Frederick


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thrupp, John


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thrupp, Joseph Francis


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thurcytel


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thurkilbi, Roger de


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thurkill (d.845)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thurkill (fl.1009)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thurland, Edward


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thurloe, John


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thurlow, Edward (1731-1806)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thurlow, Edward (1781-1829)


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


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thurmond, Mrs.


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thurnam, John


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Thurstan


text:
File:Firefox WS appearance.jpg

This is the same as

title: File:Firefox WS appearance.jpg


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/48

 :: French of M. P. Lacombe,' illustrated, London, 1874, 8vo—preface, notes, and a chapter on English Arms and Armour by Boutell. Besides these antiquarian works he published 'The Hero and his Example,' a sermon on the Duke of Wellington's death, preached at Litcham when curate under his father, London, 1852, 8vo; 'An Address to District Visitors,' &c., London, 1854, 8vo; 'A Bible Dictionary … Holy Scriptures and Apocrypha,' London, 1871, thick 8vo; since republished as 'Haydn's Bible Dictionary,' London, 1879. A work written by his daughter, Mary E. C. Boutell, 'Picture Natural History, including Zoology, Fossils, and Botany,' with upwards of 600 illustrations, London [1869], 4to, has a preface and introduction by him. In the 'Gentleman's Magazine,' 1866, he wrote a series of articles on 'Our Early National Portraits,' and many papers of his on church monuments, heraldry, &c., will be found in the journals of the Archaeological Institute and Association.
 * 1) 'Arts and the Artistic Manufactures of Denmark,' illustrated, London, 1874, large 4to.
 * 2) 'Gold-working' in 'British Manufacturing Industries,' edited by G. P. Bevan, F.G.S., London, 1876, 8vo.

BOUTFLOWER, HENRY CREWE (1796–1863), Hulsean essayist, was the son of John Boutflower, surgeon, of Salford, and was born 25 Oct. 1796. He was educated at the Manchester grammar school, and in 1815 entered St. John's College, Cambridge. In 1816 he gained the Hulsean theological prize. The degrees of B. A. and M. A. were conferred on him in 1819 and 1822, and he was ordained in 1821, when he became curate at Elmdon near Birmingham, having previously acted as assistant-master at the Manchester grammar school. In 1823 he was elected to the headmastership of the Bury school, Lancashire, and in 1832 was presented to the perpetual curacy of St. John's Church in that town. He was highly respected there as an able and conscientious clergyman and a good preacher. The rectory of Elmdon, where he first exercised his ministry, was offered to and accepted by him in 1857, and he held it until his death, which took place 4 June 1863, while on a visit at West Felton vicarage, Salop. He was buried at Elmdon. He collected materials for a history of Bury, which he left in manuscript. His Hulsean prize essay, which was published in 1817 at Cambridge, was entitled 'The Doctrine of the Atonement agreeable to Reason.' He also published a sermon on the death of William IV, 1837, and other sermons.

BOUVERIE, HENRY FREDERICK (1783–1852), general, was the third son of the Hon. Edward Bouverie, of Delapré Abbey, near Northampton, M.P. for Salisbury from 1761 to 1775, and for Northampton from 1790 to 1807, who was the second son of Sir Jacob Bouverie, first Viscount Folkestone, and brother of the first Earl of Radnor. Henry Frederick was born on 11 July 1783. He was gazetted an ensign in the 2nd or Coldstream guards on 23 Oct. 1799, and served with the brigade of guards under Sir Ralph Abercromby in Egypt. In 1807 he acted as aide-de-camp to the Earl of Rosslyn at Copenhagen, and in 1809 accompanied Sir Arthur Wellesley to Portugal in the same capacity, and was present at the Douro and at Talavera. He acted for a short time as military secretary, but on being promoted captain and lieutenant-colonel in June 1810 he gave up his post on Lord Wellington's personal staff, and was appointed to the staff of the army as assistant adjutant-general to the fourth division. He was present at the battles of Salamanca, Vittoria, the Nive, and Orthes, and at the storming of San Sebastian, and was particularly mentioned in both Sir Rowland Hill's and the Marquis of Wellington's despatches for his services at the battle of the Nive. On the conclusion of the war he was made an extra aide-de-camp to the king and a colonel in the army in June 1814, and a K.C.B. in January 1815. He was promoted major-general in 1825, and was appointed governor and commander-in-chief of the island of Malta on 1 Oct. 1836. His governorship, which he retained till June 1843, was uneventful, and at its close he was made a G.C.M.G. He had been promoted lieutenant-general in 1838, appointed colonel of the 97th regiment in 1843, and made a G.C.B. on 6 April 1852. Just as he was preparing to leave his country seat, Woolbeding House, near Midhurst in Sussex, to attend the funeral of his old commander-in-chief, the Duke of Wellington, apparently in his usual health, he suddenly fell ill from excitement and sorrow, and died on 14 Nov. 1852.

BOUVERIE, WILLIAM PLEYDELL- (1779–1869), third, a distinguished whig politician, was born in London on 11 May 1779, descended from a Huguenot family which settled in Canterbury in the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/338

 and Guildford the next day. Guilford's chaplain prepared an account of 'The Pylgymage of Sir Richard Guylforde to the Holy Land. A.D. 1506,' which Pynson printed in 1511. There is a unique copy at the British Museum, which was reprinted by Sir Henry Ellis for the Camden Society in 1851.

Guildford was twice married. His first wife was Anne, daughter and heiress of John Pimpe of Kent; his second, whom he married in presence of Henry VII and his queen, was Joan, sister of Sir Nicholas Vaux, afterwards Lord Vaux of Harrowden. By his first wife he had two sons and four daughters; by his second one son, [q. v.] Lady Joan survived him many years, accompanied Henry VIII's sister Mary into France in 1514, and had afterwards an annuity of 40l. for her service to Henry VII and his queen and their two daughters, Mary, queen of the French, and Margaret, queen of Scots (Cal. Henry VIII, vol. ii. No. 569).

GUILFORD, [See, 1637–1685.]

GUILFORD, [See, 1761–1807, first earl; , 1732–1792, second earl; , 1766–1827, fifth earl.]

GUILLAMORE, [See, 1766–1840.]

GUILLEMARD, WILLIAM HENRY, D.D. (1815–1887), divine, son of Daniel Guillemard, a Spitalfields silk merchant, and Susan, daughter of Henry Venn of Payhembury, Devonshire, was born at Hackney, 23 Nov. 1815. His family was of Huguenot extraction. He was educated at Christ's Hospital, whence he passed on a school exhibition to Pembroke College, Cambridge. In 1838 he graduated B.A., obtaining high places in both triposes. The same year he gained the Crosse divinity scholarship, and in 1839 the senior Tyrwhitt Hebrew scholarship, and became fellow of his college, proceeding M.A. in 1841, B.D. in 1849, and D.D. in 1870. He was classical lecturer of his college, but declined the tutorship there. He was ordained deacon in 1841, and priest in 1844. At Cambridge he was a successful private tutor, having among his pupils Sir Henry Maine and other men of eminence. He also took a leading part in introducing 'the Oxford movement' into his own university, and rousing it from the somewhat feeble evangelicalism into which it had sunk after Simeon's death. He was an energetic member of the Cambridge Camden Society, established in 1839 for the revival of church architecture and ritual. Owing to ill-health Guillemard spent several winters in Madeira and southern Europe.

From 1848 to 1869 Guillemard was headmaster of the Royal College at Armagh. His career in Armagh was not altogether a success; his pronounced though moderate high churchmanship roused the suspicion of the ardent protestants of the district. He secured, however, the confidence of Lord John Beresford, the primate, and the friendship of Dr. Reichel and Dr. Reeves, the present bishops of Meath and of Down.

In 1869 he left Armagh on being appointed vicar of St. Mary's the Less, Cambridge. During the seventeen years of his incumbency he exercised a wholesome influence as an anglican of the old stamp. He was chairman of the Cambridge branch of the English Church Union, and made his church the centre of advanced church teaching. Enfeebled health led him to resign his living a few months before his death, which took place at Waterbeach 2 April 1887. He was buried in the Cambridge cemetery. Guillemard married in 1849 Elizabeth Susanna Turner, who predeceased him by a few months. By her he had one son and five daughters. Guillemard's only contribution to literature, besides occasional pamphlets and sermons, was an unfinished work on the 'Hebraisms of the Greek Testament,' Cambridge, 1879. The soundness of its scholarship and its critical insight deepens our regret at its fragmentary character.

GUILLIM, JOHN (1565–1621), herald, born at Hereford, was the son of John Agilliam, or Gwyllim, of Westbury, Gloucestershire. His family was of Welsh extraction. John the younger was educated at the cathedral school, Hereford, and at a grammar school at Oxford. He matriculated (probably as a scholar from the former school) at Brasenose College, Oxford, 3 Nov. 1581. The entry in the books of the university is 'Gwyllam, John. Heref. pleb. fil. aged 16.' Soon after leaving Oxford he was called to London and made a member of the College of Arms. Afterwards (20 Feb. 1618-19) he was appointed Rouge Croix pursuivant at arms. He was a master of the Latin and French languages, and published in 1610 the book which has made him famous—'A Display of Heraldrie,' in folio, with a


text:
Talk:Nicaraguan Antiquities

Have already added the spanish text in WS, I have a link there to the english article, but cannot go from english to spanish. Somebody, please help. Antigüedades Nicaragüenses--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nicaraguan Antiquities


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Besnard, Paul Albert

BESNARD, PAUL ALBERT (1849-      ), French painter, was born in Paris in 1849 and studied at the École des Beaux-Arts, winning the Prix de Rome in 1874. Until about 1880 he followed the academic tradition, but then broke away completely, and devoted himself to the study of colour and light as conceived by the impressionists. The naturalism of this group never appealed to his imagination, but he applied their technical method adapted to meet more complicated problems of light, such as a union of twilight and artificial light to ideological and decorative works on a darge scale towards which his residence in Rome had strongly inclined him. Such are his decorations at the Sorbonne, the École de Pharmacie, the Salle des Sciences at the Hôtel de Ville, the mairie of the first arrondissement, the Théâtre Français, the Petit Palais, and the chapel of Berck hospital, for which he painted twelve “Stations of the Cross.” A large panel, “Peace by Arbitration,” was completed seven days before the outbreak of war in 1914. A great virtuoso, he has handled with equal facility water-colour, pastel, oil-painting and etching. Partly under the influence of Gainsborough and Reynolds, whom he studied during a three-years stay in England, he has applied his methods to a brilliant series of portraits, especially of women. Notable among these are the “Portrait

de Théâtre” (Mme. Rejane), and “Mme. Roger Jourdain.” Recent work includes “Cardinal Mercier” (1917) and “The King and Queen of Belgium” (1919). His analysis and treatment of light is well seen in “La Femme qui se chauffe” in the Luxembourg, Paris, one of a large group of nude studies of which a recent example is “Une Nymphe au bord de la mer”; and in the work produced during and after a visit to India in 1911. His landscape work is represented by “L'ile heureuse,” and “Un Ruisseau dans la Montagne” (1920). A symbolist in his decorative work, Besnard's frank delight in the external world and his “chic” luminous technique bring him close to the 18th-century French painters. A foundation member of the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts in 1890, in 1913 he became a member of the Institute and commander of the Legion of Honour. He has succeeded Carolus Duran as director of the French Academy in Rome.

(W. G. C.)


text: Template:EB1922 link

title: Template:EB1922 link


text:
L.W. ex rel. L.G. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).

L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education (A-111-05)

Argued November 13, 2006 — Decided February 21, 2007

ZAZZALI, J., writing for a unanimous Court.

The issue before the Court is whether a school district may be held liable under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, when students harass another student because of his perceived sexual orientation and, if so, what standard of liability governs such a cause of action.

As a fourth-grader at South Toms River Elementary School, L.W. was taunted with homosexual epithets such as "gay," "homo," and "fag." The harassment increased in regularity and severity as L.W. advanced through school. While in seventh grade at Intermediate West Middle School, L.W. was subjected to harassment almost daily, which escalated to physical aggression and molestation. Initially, the school's response to reported incidents was to talk to the students about their inappropriate behavior and to warn them of future consequences if the behavior continued. Eventually, as the harassment continued, discipline ranged from detention to suspension of repeat offenders and counseling for first-time offenders. L.W. was forced to miss school days following several of these incidents, a result of his fear and humiliation from the harassment. Eighth grade was a better year for L.W.

Throughout L.W.'s time at Intermediate West, a school-wide non-discrimination policy was in effect, one that the Tom's River Regional School Board (District) characterized as a "zero-tolerance" policy. Students and parents were provided a handbook of rules and policies stating that the District does not discriminate on the basis of numerous characteristics; however, it did not specifically enumerate affectional or sexual orientation. The District did not reinforce its discrimination policy with assemblies, letters to parents, or other widespread communication.

The District employed "progressive discipline" when addressing peer discrimination and harassment. First-time offenders were counseled by school officials; a second transgression earned disciplinary "points;" and a third offense could result in discipline. By way of comparison, if a student was more than one-minute late for class, the student received three "points" and a detention. Overall, progressive discipline was student-specific, based on the offender's prior record, not the victim's identity of history.

On entering High School South, the epithets resurfaced. The abuse culminated in two physical attacks, prompting L.W. to withdraw from the District to attend another school at the District's expense.

L.W. described his time as a student in the District as "very upsetting." Prior to the harassment, family members described L.W. as a happy child who had become depressed, fearful and withdrawn since his mistreatment.

L.W.'s mother filed a complaint against the District with the Division of Civil Rights on her son's and her own behalf, claiming that L.W. was repeatedly subjected to harassment by his peers due to his perceived sexual orientation. The complaint alleged that the District's failure to take corrective action violated the LAD. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and a three-day hearing was held. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that a cause of action against a school district for student-on-student sexual harassment was not cognizable under the LAD. The ALJ opined that L.W.'s claim should be governed by Title IX standards. Title IX prohibits sexual discrimination in any federally-funded educational program, permitting liability "only where the funding recipient acts with deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment."

The Director of the Division of Civil Rights reviewed and rejected the ALJ's dismissal of the complaint, finding that the LAD recognized hostile environment claims against a school district. The Director adopted standards similar to those established in Lehmann, and concluded that a school district will be liable for such harassment where the school administrator or his agents knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take effective measures to stop it. The Director determined that, based on those principles, L.W. was entitled to recovery. The Director also ordered the District to revamp its policies and procedures regarding the prevention of peer sexual harassment. L.W. was awarded $ 50,000 in emotional distress damages, and his mother was awarded $ 10,000. The District was assessed a penalty of $ 10,000 and was required to pay L.W.'s attorney fees.

On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the matter for further proceedings in conformity with its opinion. The panel found that an affectional or sexual orientation peer harassment claim against a school district can be brought under the LAD if the harassment rises to the level of a denial of the "advantages, facilities or privileges" of a public school. The panel further held that principles similar to those used to determine hostile work environment harassment under Lehmann govern student-on-student harassment allegations. The Appellate Division affirmed the $ 50,000 award but reversed the $ 10,000 awarded to L.W.'s mother, finding that she was not an aggrieved person under the LAD. The Appellate Division also reversed the Director's order requiring adoption of remedial measures and remanded for reconsideration, finding that the record did not demonstrate a district-wide problem supporting district-wide remediation. One judge dissented from the majority's finding that the District failed to take effective remedial measures.

The District's appeal of the ineffective remedial measures finding is before the Supreme Court as of right, based on the dissent in the Appellate Division. The Supreme Court granted the District's petition for certification concerning whether the LAD provides a cause of action for peer harassment and, if so, what standard of liability applies. Seven child advocacy and civil rights organizations filed a joint friend of the Court brief.

HELD: The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination recognizes a cause of action against a school district for student-on-student affectional or sexual orientation harassment. A school district is liable for such harassment when the school district knew or should have known of the harassment but failed to take actions reasonably calculated to end the mistreatment and offensive conduct.

1. The overarching goal of the LAD is to eradicate the "cancer of discrimination." This Court has liberally construed the LAD to further the Legislature's broad remedial objectives. (Pp. 17-18)

2. Because of the LAD's plain language, its broad remedial goal, and the prevalent nature of peer sexual harassment, the Court concludes that the LAD permits a cause of action against a school district for student-on-student harassment based on an individual's perceived sexual orientation if the school district's failure to reasonably address that harassment has the effect of denying that student any of the school's "accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges." A conclusion to the contrary would not square with the LAD's prohibition of discrimination in other settings, including the workplace. In addition, this holding furthers the Legislature's goal or eradicating invidious discrimination faced by students in our public schools. Isolated schoolyard insults or classroom taunts are not necessarily actionable. Rather, the aggrieved student must allege discriminatory conduct that would not have occurred "but for" the student's protected characteristic, that a reasonable student of the same age, maturity level, and protected characteristic would consider sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive school environment that the school district failed to reasonably address. (Pp. 18-22)

3. The Court will depart from federal precedent if a rigid application of its standards is inappropriate under the circumstances. The Court rejects the Title IX deliberate indifference standard because the Lehmann standard should apply in the workplace and in the school setting. There is no need to impose a separate standard because the discrimination is in a school. Additionally, there are substantial differences in scope between the LAD and Title IX and Title IX standard is more burdensome than the LAD test. It would be unfair to impose a more onerous burden on aggrieved students than on aggrieved employees. (Pp. 22-27)

4. The LAD standard governing hostile work environment sexual harassment, as modified, comports best with the circumstances presented in this appeal. A contrary conclusion would be inapposite to the State's strong policy protecting students. In the school setting, the Lehmann standard requires that a school district may be found liable under the LAD for student-on-student sexual orientation harassment that creates a hostile education environment when the school district knew or should have known of the harassment, but failed to take action reasonably calculated to end the harassment. Because the Court does not create a strict-liability standard, the school district is not compelled to purge its schools of all peer harassment to avoid liability. Rather, schools are required to implement effective preventative and remedial measures to curb severe or pervasive discriminatory mistreatment. (Pp. 27-29)

5. The application of a modified Lehmann standard requires further guidance. Schools are different from workplaces; therefore, factfinders must determine the reasonableness of a school district's response to peer harassment in light of the totality of the circumstances. Only a fact-sensitive, case-by-case analysis will suffice to determine whether a school district's conduct was reasonable in its efforts to end harassment. Where applicable, the triers of fact should consult DOE regulations, model policies, and other guidance that the agency provides. Factfinders must consider the cumulative effect of all student harassment and all efforts of the school district to curtail the conduct. Finally, expert evidence may be required to establish the reasonableness of the district's response. (Pp. 30-33)

6. Having established a standard by which a school district may be held liable under the LAD for student-on-student harassment and having provided guidance to future factfinders, this matter must be remanded to the Director of the Division of Civil Rights with the further direction that this matter be referred to the OAL to permit supplementation of the record, if requested by either party. (Pp. 33-36)

Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED as MODIFIED. The matter is REMANDED to the Director of the Division on Civil Rights, with the direction that the case be referred to the Office of Administrative Law for proceedings consistent with this opinion. $

Thomas E. Monahan Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches argued the cause for appellant (Gilmore & Monahan, attorneys; Michael J. Gilmore, on the briefs).

James R. Michael, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (Stuart Rabner, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Andrea M. Silkowitz Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).

Lawrence S. Lustberg Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches argued the cause for amici curiae, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, Association for Children of New Jersey, Education Law Center, Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network of Northern New Jersey, National Conference for Community and Justice (NJ), New Jersey Family Voices, Roxbury Parents for Exceptional Children, and Statewide Parents Advocacy Network of New Jersey (Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches, attorneys; Emily B. Goldberg Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches, on the letter in lieu of brief).

Chief Justice ZAZZALI delivered the opinion of the Court. Chief Justice ZAZZALI and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE, RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS.