text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/178

 Almon published a longer ‘Enquiry into the doctrine … concerning Libels, Warrants, and the Seizure of Papers … in a Letter … from the Father of Candor.’ These pamphlets, dealing with the Wilkes controversy, made some impression, went through several editions, and have been attributed to Dunning, Lord Temple, and others. Parkes attributes them to Francis upon internal evidence of little cogency, and also upon the evidence of a letter from ‘Candor’ to Woodfall, with a list of corrections, which is said to be ‘unquestionably’ in the handwriting of Francis (not the feigned hand of ‘Junius’). The original, of which a facsimile is given by Parkes and Merivale, is in Addit. MS. 27777. It may be added that ‘ Candor’ (2nd edit. p. 27) and the ‘Father of Candor’ (2nd edit. p. 37) speak pointedly of the practice in the secretary of state's office (see, i. 75–81, 85–96, 99–101). Woodfall addresses his correspondent as ‘C.,’ the signature afterwards used by Junius. Parkes also attributes to Francis a pamphlet called ‘Irenarch’ (1774), which he considers to be a continuation of the ‘Candor’ pamphlets. It was really written by R. Heathcote, in whose name it was afterwards published (Notes and Queries, 3rd series, xii. 456). Besides this Parkes identifies Francis with ‘Anti-Sejanus,’ the writer of letters to the ‘Public Advertiser’ in January 1765 and later, who is probably the ‘Anti-Sejanus Junior’ identified with Junius as author of one of the ‘Miscellaneous Letters’ in Woodfall's (1812) edition. ‘Anti-Sejanus’ was certainly James Scott, a clergyman patronised by Lord Sandwich, as was stated by a correspondent of the ‘Public Advertiser’ of 16 April 1770 (see also, Lit. Anecd. ix. 125; Chatham Corr. iv. 66). Parkes again attributes to Francis a letter signed ‘A Friend to Public Credit’ in the ‘Public Advertiser’ of 28 June 1768, of which he found a copy among Francis's papers. He failed to observe that this is one of a series by the same writer, and that a later letter of 11 Oct. 1768 is sharply attacked by ‘Brutus,’ and (19 Oct.) ‘Atticus’ (two of the letters assigned both by Parkes and Woodfall to Junius). If Francis wrote it, he was not Junius. But it is as inconsistent with Francis's views at the time as with the views of Junius. The ‘Atticus’ letter in which it is assailed was specially praised by Calcraft, with whom Francis was then acting, in a letter to the elder Francis (, i. 216). A copy of the letter of 28 June was no doubt kept by Francis, because it professes to give details of an operation upon the funds contemplated by the government. These palpable blunders go far to destroy the authority of Parkes's identifications. The following period of Francis's career is remarkably illustrated by the autobiographical fragment, written not later than 1776, and published by Parkes and Merivale (i. 355–70). His great patron was Calcraft. Francis says that he ‘concurred heartily’ in Calcraft's schemes, which offered his only ‘hope of advancement.’ Calcraft had been in close connection both with Chatham and with Chatham's brothers-in-law, Lord Temple and George Grenville, and kept upon terms with all these after the quarrel which separated them upon Chatham's acceptance of office in 1766. From the spring of 1767 Chatham's illness had caused his retirement from active participation in the government, and he finally resigned in October 1768. Calcraft's plan was to discredit the rump of Chatham's administration, to reconcile Chatham to the Grenville party, and to attack ministers by a combination, including the Rockinghams as well as the Grenvilles. This political combination succeeded so well that in the beginning of 1770, as Francis observes, victory seemed assured. The great support of the opposition was the agitation on behalf of Wilkes, who returned to England at the beginning of 1768. His election for Middlesex, his expulsions and re-election, final exclusion, and other disputes arising out of these questions were the main topics of controversy from 1768 till 1772. Junius was undoubtedly the close (even if unknown) ally of the clique to which Calcraft and Francis belonged throughout the whole movement. The very questionable authenticity of the ‘Miscellaneous Letters’ makes it impossible to speak confidently of the earlier attitude of Junius. We know, however, that on 2 Jan. 1768 he wrote privately to Chatham (Chatham Corr. iii. 302), warning him, with expressions of ‘ respect and veneration,’ of treachery on the part of his colleagues. Chatham soon discovered, says Francis (, i. 361), ‘that he had been cajoled and deceived.’ During 1768 Junius also wrote three remarkable private letters to George Grenville (Grenville Corr. iv. 254, 355, 379). They claim the authorship of a letter called ‘the Grand Council,’ of the ‘Atticus’ of 19 Oct. 1768, of letters signed ‘Lucius,’ of others in defence of Grenville and criticising the commission of trade, and of ‘almost everything that for two years past has attracted the attention of the public.’ The author, who signs himself ‘C.,’ expects to make himself known to Grenville when Grenville becomes a minister, and will then not be ‘a needy and troublesome dependent.’ During 1768 Junius (assuming him to have written the ‘Miscellaneous Letters,’ some of which are thus claimed) bitterly attacked the government,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/179

 and especially the Duke of Grafton. If ‘C.’ be always his signature, he also attacked Wilkes at his first appearance, apparently because he first thought that ministers could be best assailed for want of energy, though he afterwards assails them for their arbitrary measures. He alludes disrespectfully to Chatham (‘Lucius’ 29 Aug. and ‘Atticus’ 19 Oct.), for Chatham's fame was still of use to ministers. He especially insists at length upon the dismissal of Amherst, which was regarded as a personal slight to Chatham, and therefore served to detach him from office.

The signature ‘Junius’ first appeared on 21 Nov. 1768, when Grafton and Camden were attacked for their behaviour to Wilkes. The first Junius of the collected edition appeared 21 Jan. 1769. It led to the sharp controversy with Sir William Draper [q. v.], which made the letters famous. The signature was afterwards used by Junius for his most careful writings, though he used many others. Junius now appeared as the advocate of Wilkes during the contest produced by his expulsions, and assailed the Duke of Bedford, whose influence was now on the government side, with singular ferocity. He culminated with the famous letter to the king on 19 Dec. 1769, which produced more sensation than any other letter.

At the beginning of 1770 Chatham came to the front with restored health. His friends Camden and Granby retired; Yorke committed suicide from remorse after taking Camden's place; Grafton himself resigned in January, and was succeeded by North. While Junius carried on the attack in his letters, Francis endeavoured to get Chatham's speeches diffused through the press. He claimed long afterwards, in a private note in Belsham's ‘History’ (ed. 1805), to have reported the speeches of Mansfield and Chatham on 9 Jan. 1770, and ‘all Chatham's speeches on the Middlesex election,’ &c., in this year (Chatham Corr. iv. 194). On the publication in the ‘Parliamentary History’ in 1813 he claimed to have reported Chatham's speeches of 9 and 22 Jan. and of 22 Nov., the only fully reported speeches of this period (Parl. Hist. xvi. 647, 741, 1091, and preface to vol. xxxiv.). He stated in pamphlets of 1811 that he had heard Chatham's speeches of January (see Junius Identified, 1816, pp. 289, 325). The speeches of January had appeared, as given for the first time by a ‘gentleman of strong memory,’ in Almon's ‘Anecdotes of Chatham,’ 1792, to which Francis made other contributions (, i. 160; Appendix, p. 28). Notes taken from a speech of Chatham's on 2 Feb. 1770 are given from Francis's papers in Parkes and Merivale (i. 390–393). Francis's claim has at least a prima facie justification. Taylor in his ‘Junius Identified’ pointed out a number of coincidences, some of them very remarkable, between the reports of the January speeches, the writings of Junius both before and after, and some of Francis's own writings. Dilke (Papers of a Critic, vol. ii.) endeavoured to meet this by stating that extracts from the speech of 9 Jan. had appeared at the time in the papers. The document to which Dilke apparently refers contains only a few brief fragments, in different language and without the specific phrases. He could find no report of the speech of 22 Jan. which contains, besides other coincidences, a sentence, quoted verbatim by Junius, in a private letter to Wilkes (7 Sept. 1771). This proves that Junius had seen the report, which, so far as we know, was still in Francis's desk. The nature of the brief and disguised reports of the time makes it highly improbable that any other report than that mentioned was published, and Almon's statement that he was the first publisher seems to be justified.

When parliament met in November 1770, the opposition dwelt chiefly upon the Falkland Islands difficulty, and upon the conduct of Mansfield in the trials of Woodfall and others for publishing Junius's letter to the king. On 22 Nov. Chatham delivered a great speech upon the Falkland Islands difficulty. Francis says in his autobiography (, i. 363) that he took it down from memory and had it published ‘in a few days.’ It appeared accordingly (Papers of a Critic) as an extra ‘North Briton’ on 1 Dec.; it was reprinted in the ‘Middlesex Journal,’ again in the ‘Museum’ by Almon, and was claimed by Francis in 1813.

A debate upon Mansfield followed on 5 Dec. A report was published at the time in several papers. On 10 Dec. Junius and Francis came into remarkable conjunction. On 21 Nov. Junius had written privately to Woodfall, hoping for information to be used against Mansfield, whom he is resolved to ‘destroy.’ On 1 Dec. Francis wrote a letter to Calcraft to be laid before Chatham, suggesting that Mansfield should be assailed by other methods, but not formally attacked in the house, where he was certain of a majority. Francis next got a hint of an argument against Mansfield from a friend at a tavern, reduced it to form, and sent it through Calcraft to Chatham. The paper, dated 9 Dec., is printed in the ‘Chatham Correspondence’ (iv. 48–9). Three days later Francis was flattered by hearing Chatham adopt his very words, and the next day the speech ‘flamed in the newspapers and ran through the kingdom.’

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


text:
Author:Alexandre Le Roy

Works

 * The Religion of the Primitives, 1922

title: Author:Alexandre Le Roy


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/180

 Chatham spoke on 10 Dec., and the ‘London Evening Post’ of the 11th reported that he had condemned Mansfield's conduct as ‘irregular, extrajudicial and unprecedented,’ the words used in Francis's private letter. Chatham's argument, however, was not given, and ‘Nerva’ in the ‘Public Advertiser’ of 14 Dec. showed that he had missed the point. On 17 Dec. ‘Nerva’ was answered by ‘Phalaris,’ who restates Francis's argument with such verbal closeness that there can be no doubt that he was Francis, or had read Francis's confidential communication to Chatham (see Herman Merivale in Fortnightly Review, March 1868). This letter, by omitting the three italicised words in ‘I affirm with Lord Chatham,’ became Chatham's speech in the report of the ‘Museum’ for January. In 1772 Junius cited this report in a note to the preface of the collected edition of his letters, and added ‘it is exactly taken.’ The ‘Phalaris’ letter, which was almost certainly by Francis, is included in the ‘Miscellaneous Letters’ of Junius; and the probability that Junius was the author is increased by his guarantee of its accuracy, and by the fact that he was keenly anxious to attack Mansfield; that he was writing the letter of ‘Domitian’ at least, and private letters to Woodfall, and that, if he was not ‘Phalaris,’ he made no direct attempt to support Chatham's assault upon the common enemy. A violent scene took place later in the debate of 10 Dec., at which Francis states that he was present, and it is described in the ‘Museum,’ obviously by an eye-witness. It ended in the expulsion of all strangers. Junius's private letter to Woodfall of 31 Jan. 1771 shows his extreme anxiety that the doors of the House of Lords might not be closed in the coming session. Francis, who attributes the closing to his publication of the 22 Nov. speech, declares that the closure was fatal to the opposition.

Francis and Junius were equally interested in the Falkland Islands quarrel. Francis thought that a war would necessarily place Chatham in power, and in that case he says ‘I might have commanded anything.’ He speculated in the funds, and by the peaceful settlement of the dispute in 1771 lost 500l. Calcraft told Chatham on 14 Jan. 1771 that war ‘is more and more certain.’ Junius told Woodfall, 16 Jan. 1771, that ‘every man in the administration looks upon war as inevitable.’ The ‘Domitian’ letter of 17 Jan. argues the same point, and on 30 Jan. Junius argues the case in a letter to which Johnson made a well-known reply. The remarks in this letter are curiously coincident with remarks from an unnamed correspondent, communicated to Chatham by Calcraft on 20 Jan.

The settlement of this question strengthened the ministry; and the opposition gradually declined and fell into discordant factions. Junius supported the city in the quarrel with the House of Commons. In the summer he again attacked Grafton, who in May 1771 accepted the privy seal; and was diverted by a sharp encounter with Horne, who was now quarrelling with Wilkes. He afterwards corresponded privately with Wilkes, suggesting means for pacifying the conflicting factions. The opposition grew daily weaker. At the end of 1771 Junius made his last assault upon Mansfield for bailing Eyre. The letter, composed with great labour, is said by Campbell and Charles Butler to prove that Junius was not a lawyer. Like the attack made by Francis, however, it turns upon a technical point, and Junius, like Francis, sent the proof-sheets of his letter to Chatham, asking him to co-operate in the House of Lords. The letter, which appeared 21 Jan. 1772, with another to Lord Camden, was a complete failure, and Junius, under that name, wrote no more.

On 21 Jan. 1772 D'Oyly, Francis's intimate friend, resigned his post at the war office. Barrington appointed Anthony Chamier [q. v.] in his place. Francis himself resigned in March. On 25 Jan. Junius told Woodfall of Chamier's appointment, and announced his intention of ‘torturing’ Barrington, requesting Woodfall at the same time to be careful to keep it secret that Junius was the torturer. The intention was fulfilled in the letters under various signatures, presumably intended to suggest different authors, which appeared on 28 Jan. and in the following months. They show Junius in his cruellest mood, and are in a vein of brutal pleasantry which, though it occurs in some of the other unacknowledged letters, is so unlike the more dignified style of Junius as to evade recognition. If Francis wrote them, they gave vent to the accumulated bile of an ambitious and arrogant subordinate against a dull and supercilious superior, whose politics he despised, who had turned out his dearest friend, and who had not yet had his fair share of abuse in Junius.

It is, however, remarkable that the facts, very partially known to us, do not fully explain Francis's wrath. The memoir in the ‘Mirror’ (1811), probably inspired by Francis, states that he resigned ‘in consequence of a difference with Viscount Barrington, by whom he thought himself injured.’ Yet in a private letter of 24 Jan. 1772 Francis says that Barrington had offered D'Oyly's place to him ( and, i. 275), which


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/181

 he refused for ‘solid reasons.’ Barrington also wrote politely to Francis on 26 Feb. requesting him to make his own statement of the cause of his resignation, and desiring to use Francis's own words. The matter ‘cannot remain a secret,’ he says. In fact, however, the secret has been kept; no explanation is given by Francis himself or elsewhere. Francis's sixth child was born in this year; his father, who had long been hopelessly infirm, seems to have been partly dependent upon him. In losing his office, therefore, Francis would appear to have lost his chief means of support, while there were heavy claims upon him. He probably had some expectations through Calcraft's influence. He had been for some time thinking of an Indian appointment (ib. i. 260). He left England for a tour on the continent 7 July 1772, Calcraft promising to join him at Naples. Calcraft died 23 Aug. He had left 1,000l. to Francis by a codicil dated on the day of Francis's resignation, and an annuity of 200l. payable to Mrs. Francis if she should survive her husband and be left without due provision. Francis was also to be elected for his borough, Wareham. In his autobiography Francis leaves a spiteful character of Calcraft (ib. i. 359), curiously resembling a reference in Junius's letter of 5 Oct. 1771. Francis returned to England 14 Dec. 1772, anxious and only comforted by the friendship of D'Oyly. He was summoned to Bath, where his father was rapidly sinking, and returned to London on 12 or 13 Jan. The last letter from Junius to Woodfall had been dated 10 May 1772. A private note from Junius, taking a final leave of his publisher, is dated 19 Jan. 1773.

The evidence for the identity of Francis and Junius may be now briefly summarised. (1) Junius was especially acquainted with the affairs of the war office, and, in a less degree, of the state office. (2) Junius's fury at the dismissal of D'Oyly and Francis, coupled with his anxiety to conceal the fact that he was the author of these letters (private letter of 25 Jan. 1772), undoubtedly suggests some close personal interest. The publication of these letters in 1812, which first revealed the fact that they were written by Junius, suggested Francis to Taylor. (3) The facts above stated show that Junius throughout his career was acting, consciously or not, in the closest co-operation with Francis. Francis almost certainly wrote one of the ‘Miscellaneous Letters’ which fits into the Junius series. Junius guarantees the accuracy of a report by Francis of a speech in which Francis took a peculiar interest; and reports, probably due to Francis, make use of letters by Junius. Some presumptive proofs that Junius had information known to Francis will be found in the ‘Grenville Correspondence’ (ii. cxiv. seq.), where they are adduced to support the hypothesis that Junius was Lord Temple. (4) The papers of Francis show that his absences from London correspond with the silence of Junius. Horne on 16 Aug. 1771 taunts Junius for delaying till 13 Aug. to answer a previous letter of 31 July. Francis had left London at the end of July, and returned on 11, or possibly 12 Aug. Almost every letter assigned to Junius was delivered when Francis was probably in London. The chief exception is that Francis was at Margate when ‘Q in the Corner’ and ‘A Labourer in the same Cause’ were acknowledged in the ‘Public Advertiser’ of 6 July 1770. But the ‘Labourer in the same Cause’ is probably spurious, and the other may probably have been sent before Francis's departure (see Notes and Queries, 4th ser. xi. 130, 178, 202, 387, 425, for discussions of this point). (5) The evidence from handwriting is apparently very strong. In 1871 Mr. Twisleton published a careful examination by the expert Charles Chabot [q. v.], who gives in detail reasons which can be easily tested, and are apparently conclusive for identifying the handwriting of Junius and Francis. In the same book will be found a curious account of a poem sent in all probability by Francis about Christmas 1771 to a Miss Giles, in the handwriting of his cousin, Tilghman, and enclosed in an anonymous letter, which is identified by another expert, Mr. Netherclift, as in the handwriting of Junius. In one correction of the press, and probably in some corrections afterwards erased, Junius forgot to use his disguise. and writes a date in a hand indistinguishable from Francis's. This, however, has been disputed. (6) Some minor coincidences have been alleged. ‘ Bifrons’ in the ‘Miscellaneous Letters’ says that he saw the books of the jesuits burnt in Paris. This probably refers to August 1761, when Englishmen were excluded by the war. But Francis wished to accompany, and possibly may have been sent with despatches to, Hans Stanley, who was then engaged in negotiations in Paris, and who described the scene in a despatch which Francis, if in England, must have seen. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether Junius wrote ‘Bifrons’ (see, i. 192, 196). The alleged kindness to Fox is of little or no importance, because the elder Francis and Calcraft had bitterly quarrelled with Fox, and Francis was as likely to have attacked as to have spared him. (7) Francis clearly belonged to the same political school as Junius, and was, like him, a whig doctrinaire.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/182

 There is a close general coincidence of opinion, with such slight divergences as are naturally explained by the changes of Francis's position in later life. Francis never wrote anything equal to Junius, though occasional passages suggest the same authorship. Upon this head, however, it is only safe to say that the identification presents no great difficulty, though the resemblance by itself affords scarcely any presumption. (8) Francis's conduct when challenged is on the whole confirmative. He seems (see afterwards) to have desired that the claim should be accepted, but to have been unwilling to make it himself. He appears to have denied the fact at times, though some alleged denials read like equivocations. To have claimed the authorship openly would have been to admit that he had been guilty of libelling his patron, Barrington, whose brother, the Bishop of Durham, was still alive, to say nothing of other admissions. Had he been conscious of innocence, an explicit denial would certainly have been called for. His actual course may be explained by such motives struggling with vanity, and confirmed by long habits of secretiveness and a probably exaggerated view of the importance of the facts. But other explanations are of course possible. (9) The moral resemblance is undoubtedly so close that it would be impossible to describe the character of Junius except in terms strikingly applicable to Francis. The chief arguments against Francis are that his authorship would imply an underhand malignity, which is not improbable in the author of Junius, whoever he may have been, and only too probable in Francis, whether he was or was not the author of Junius. It is also said that Woodfall, the printer of the letters, and Pitt stated that they knew Francis not to be the author. Both Pitt and Woodfall died, however, before the authorship had been publicly, if at all, attributed to Francis; and such second-hand reports are of little value (see, on the other side, Mr. Fraser Rae in the ‘Athenæum,’ 1888, ii. 192). On the whole, it may be said that Taylor established a prima facie presumption, which has been considerably strengthened by the publication of Francis's papers, and which is turned into something like proof, unless the coincidences of handwriting stated by Chabot and Netherclift can be upset. Nor is there any real difficulty in the assumption. The personal indications thrown out by Junius in his private letters to Woodfall and Wilkes are so indefinite and so probably mere blinds, that no inference can be drawn from them.

Francis made a short journey to the Hague two months after his father's death (5 March 1772). He there obtained permission from a M. de Pinto to translate his ‘Essay on Circulation.’ The translation was published under the name of his cousin, Stephen Baggs. Lord North had just passed his ‘Regulating Act’ for India, under which the governor of Bengal was to become governor-general of India, and to be controlled by a council of four. Francis had been thinking of retiring to Pennsylvania, where he had purchased a thousand acres through his brother-in-law, Alexander Macrabie. Hearing that one of the places in the council was not filled, Francis applied to Barrington, who recommended him to North in ‘the handsomest and strongest letter imaginable,’ and on North's advice was approved by the king and named in the bill, his colleagues being Warren Hastings, the new governor-general, Clavering, Monson, and Barwell. The appointment of a retired clerk to a place of 10,000l. a year has suggested the hypothesis that he was receiving hush-money as Junius. The post had already been refused by Burke and Cholwell at least, and was apparently going begging ( and, i. 327). For obvious reasons the Junius hypothesis is improbable, though no further explanation can be given. The vague gossip reported by Lady Francis and the family, and given in Wade's ‘ Junius,’ is inconsistent and incredible. After this Francis was on friendly terms with Barrington (ib. p. 329). He visited Clive, with whose son and widow he kept up an intimacy. After various difficulties with the court of directors, whose instructions to the new council were offensive to Francis, he finally sailed from Portsmouth 31 March 1774, leaving, it seems, a liberal allowance for his wife and her family.

Francis reached Calcutta 19 Oct. 1774. He came, according to Merivale (ii. 9, 239), strongly prejudiced against Hastings, although in 1787 he declared in the House of Commons that he and his colleagues had left England with the ‘highest opinion’ of Hastings. In any case Francis soon came to regard Hastings with sentiments resembling strongly the sentiments expressed towards Mansfield by Junius. In his earliest letters he denounced with great bitterness the corruption and rapacity which, as he declared, pervaded the whole Indian administration. Francis, Clavering, and Monson were the majority of the council, opposed by Hastings and Barwell. They reversed Hastings's policy and recalled his agents [see under ]. Francis was singularly energetic. He had four secretaries, his private secretary being his brother-in-law, Macrabie, and sometimes dictated to them all at once. He kept up a large correspondence,


text: Category:United States Supreme Court decisions in Volume 410


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 23, 1912.djvu/364

342 between several great stones, which look as if they might have formed part of the chamber of a tumulus; and colour is given to this conjecture by a local saying that "it was where they buried the soldiers after a battle." Gold is also supposed to be buried there, and the place has a ghost.

Caves.—Not more than a hundred yards away from "The Round Tree" there is a kind of cave or hollow, with a great stone half-way across the opening; it is said to be the entrance to an underground passage leading to Minchinhampton. "In a time of battle, a queen took refuge there," said an old man in Hyde. There are terraces along the upper slope' of the hill from Hyde to Bestbury, with France Lynch and Oakridge Lynch on the opposite side of Brimscombe Valley.

(To be continued.)

.

[The following story was told to me by a Laxey man, J. R. Moore, now in New Zealand, who said that he had heard it in his youth from old Manxmen. The Dooinney-Oie, or Night-Man, seems peculiar to the Isle of Man, though he bears a faint resemblance to the Irish banshee.]

Night-Man lived in a lonely cave, well hid on the side of Cronk-y-Thonna, and he would sit there looking out over the ling of Glen Roy, the ruddy glen, as they were calling it. No person would go near that cave except the most daring boys, and even they had often cause to regret that they had put a sight on the Night-Man's home. Sudden pains would sometimes warn them off, or they would sprain their wrists or ankles. The children out that way after blackberries or hazel nuts would always be careful to give the place a wide berth, as they would be told to mind for their lives not to go too near. But for all that the Dooinney-Oie was useful to the folk of Laxey and the gills around, for he would give them warning of the approach of storms and so save the lines, nets, and pots of the fishermen of Old


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/183

 and preserved his papers in the most businesslike method (, ii. 3, 24).

His quarrel with Hastings was soon embittered by the part which Francis took in the famous case of Nuncomar. On 11 March 1774 Francis received a visit from Nuncomar, who brought him a letter. Francis laid this before the council, declaring himself to be ignorant of its contents. It charged Hastings with corruption. In the interval between the committal and the execution of Nuncomar, Francis and his colleagues had some conflicts with the supreme court on questions arising out of the proceedings. On 31 July Nuncomar wrote a letter to Francis, entreating him to intercede for a respite. On 1 Aug. Nuncomar's counsel, Farrer, proposed to Francis that the council should send to the court a letter covering a petition from Nuncomar and supporting his prayer for a respite. Francis approved, but as Clavering and Monson declined, the matter dropped, and Nuncomar's last chance disappeared. He was hanged 5 Aug. On the 14th Clavering presented to the council a petition received from Nuncomar on the 4th. This petition suggested that he was judicially murdered on account of his attack upon Hastings. Hastings proposed that the letter should be sent to the judges, upon whose character it reflected. Francis, however, stated that he considered it as ‘libellous’ and ‘wholly unsupported,’ and carried a motion that it should be burnt by the common hangman and the copy of it expunged from the proceedings of the council. He tried upon the impeachment of Impey to explain his conduct in suppressing this document as libellous, although he and his colleagues made similar insinuations both before and after the event in the minutes of the council. He asserted that if he had acted weakly it was from a desire to save Clavering from the vengeance of Hastings; while it has been argued (, Nuncomar and Impey, ii. 108) that his real motive was to keep the charge against Hastings secret until it could be used to more effect. Francis's letters at the time seem to imply a very cautious reticence (, ii. 35). The question is discussed in two pamphlets published in 1788, ‘Answer of Philip Francis to the charge brought … by Sir E. Impey’ (by Francis), and ‘A Refutation of … the Answer’ (by Impey). Francis had before long quarrelled with Clavering. His position became uncomfortable, and upon the death of Monson (25 Sept. 1776) he was reduced to impotence, Hastings having the casting vote. He had meanwhile won 20,000l. at whist from Barwell, a sum reduced to 12,000l. by subsequent losses. He then gave up play and invested his winnings. Although powerless in the council, he had hopes that Hastings would be superseded, and that he would be appointed to the vacant place. In June 1777 these hopes were dispelled upon Hastings's repudiation of his previous resignation and the decision of the supreme court in his favour. Clavering died 30 Aug. 1777. In the next month Francis wrote an elaborate letter to Lord North upon Indian affairs, separately printed in 1793. Wheler, sent out to succeed Hastings, arrived in Calcutta in November 1777, and generally acted with Francis as a member of council. They agreed in the following February to oppose ‘the pernicious measures’ of Hastings.

In 1778 Francis had an intrigue with the lovely wife, aged 16, of a Swiss officer in the East India Company's service, named Grand. In November Grand surprised Francis, who had entered Mme. Grand's room. An action was brought by Grand against Francis, who was sentenced to pay fifty thousand rupees damages by Impey (6 March 1779). Mme. Grand afterwards threw herself upon Francis's protection. She left India before him, and afterwards became the mistress, and in 1801 the wife, of Talleyrand.

In March 1779 Sir Eyre Coote succeeded Clavering as member of council and in command of the forces. Francis afterwards accused Hastings of buying Coote's support by large allowances, and says of Coote in November, in language suggesting Junius upon Barrington, ‘I never heard of so abandoned a scoundrel.’ The military difficulties now led to a truce with Hastings, in which Major Scott acted as negotiator. The political differences were compromised. Two of Francis's protégés were to be restored to the posts from which Hastings had removed them, and Francis undertook not to oppose Hastings in the management of the Mahratta war. Francis also joined with Hastings in opposing the pretensions of the supreme court under Impey. Francis and his new colleague Wheler were still on bad terms with Hastings. At last, in July 1780, Hastings accused Francis of breaking their agreement, and stated in an official minute that he had found Francis's private conduct to be ‘void of truth and honour.’ Francis's account was that his agreement referred only to the operations already begun and not to new movements intended by Hastings. A duel followed (17 Aug. 1780), in which Francis was severely wounded. He recovered in a few days, but took little active part in business afterwards, finding that Wheler was not hearty in supporting him. He left India at the end of 1780, and, after a long delay at St. Helena, reached


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/184

 Dover on 19 Oct. 1781. Francis is said to have made judicious suggestions for the government of India, and to have proposed the permanent settlement of Bengal, afterwards carried out by Lord Cornwallis; but is remembered almost solely by his antagonism to Hastings.

Francis had realised a fortune amounting to over 3,000l. a year (, ii. 211). He had been accused of parsimony, and, as part of this fortune was due to his gambling, his salary of 10,000l. a year would enable him to make the rest without using the corruption imputed to many contemporary ‘nabobs.’ It has been suggested, but apparently without authority, that his appointment was clogged by the condition that he should pay part of his salary to a ‘rider’ (Calcutta Review). He was so unpopular on his arrival in England that no one, it is said (, ii. 204), except the king and Lord North, would speak to him when he first appeared at court. He seems (ib.) to have contributed many anonymous papers to the press. Attacks upon the Indian administration in the ‘Intrepid Magazine’ and ‘A State of the British Authority in Bengal’ (1781) are attributed to him. He was also supposed to have inspired a book called ‘Travels in Europe, Asia, and America,’ &c., published under the name of Macintosh. Francis solemnly denied the authorship; but he is shown to have paid Macintosh a sum of 1,000l. at this time, besides ‘large advances’ to his cousin, Major Baggs, although he equally denied that Baggs was his agent (ib. pp. 205, 206). An edition of Junius, without the name of printer or publisher, appeared in 1783, and has been attributed to Francis by Parkes (Notes and Queries, 17 Feb. 1855).

In April 1784 Francis was returned to parliament for Yarmouth, Isle of Wight. He failed as a speaker, although he prepared and reported his speeches with great care. Wyndham and Dr. Parr praised them highly; but he was pompous, didactic, and wanting in fluency (, Recollections and Reflections, 1822;, Memoirs, ii. 200). He was a keen whig, and became intimate with all the assailants of Hastings. He had made Burke's acquaintance before sailing for India, and during his stay here they had had some correspondence. Francis gave Burke information and advice in preparing the charges against Hastings, and in April 1787 he was proposed as one of the managers of the impeachment, but rejected after some sharp debates. The managers, however, asked him in very complimentary terms to assist them, and he was most eager and regular in his attendance at the trial. His own statement of his share in preparing the impeachment and suggesting Burke's arguments is given by Merivale (ii. 287, 288).

In 1790 Francis was returned for Bletchingley. When Burke was alienated from the whigs by his views of the French revolution, Francis remonstrated with him, criticising his sentimental defence of Marie Antoinette with great severity, while Burke treated his dissent with special respect. Their correspondence, however, seems to have dropped, though Francis always spoke respectfully of his old friend.

Francis was an early reformer, and one of the founders of the ‘Society of the Friends of the People,’ of whose original programme (1793) he was in great part the author. He also was a strong opponent of the slave trade. In 1798 he was defeated in an election for Tewkesbury, but continued his intimacy with the whigs, and protested against Fox's secession. He became very intimate with Lord Thanet [see ], a radical reformer of the time, and was returned for Appleby in November 1802 by Thanet's influence. He had at this time many family losses, his daughter Harriet dying at Nice on 2 Jan. 1803, another daughter, Elizabeth, on 14 July 1804, and his wife on 5 April 1806.

One of his last performances was an elaborate speech upon India, 5 April 1805. He hoped for the governor-generalship upon the death of Cornwallis (5 Oct. 1805). In March 1806 he quarrelled with Fox for declining to promise him the appointment. The death of Pitt seemed to open the way, and at this period Francis was for some years on terms of close intimacy with the prince regent. Various accounts have been given of the negotiations which took place (see, Statesmen of the Time of George III; and Lady Francis in , ii. 351–4). The governor-generalship was clearly out of the question, and Francis is said to have declined the government of the Cape. He had finally to content himself with the honour of adding K.C.B. to his name. Francis was re-elected for Appleby in December 1806, but on the election of 1807 he retired from parliamentary life.

The intimacy with the prince regent gradually declined as the prince dropped the whigs. Francis adhered to his rigid whiggism. At the end of 1814 he married his second wife, Miss Emma Watkins, daughter of a Yorkshire clergyman, born, as she states, ten years after the last Junius letter, or in 1782. He had corresponded with her from 1806, and seems to have been an affectionate husband. His amanuensis in later years was


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/57

 Plate I.


text: Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/58


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/61

 Plate II.


text: Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/62


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/185

 Edward Dubois [q. v.], who published a life of Francis in the ‘Monthly Mirror’ for 1811. The publication of Taylor's ‘ Discovery of Junius’ in 1813 (in which Junius is supposed to be the elder Francis, assisted by his son), and of ‘Junius Identified’ in 1816, put Francis in a difficult position. When the first was published, Francis wrote to the editor of the ‘ Monthly Magazine,’ who wrote to him on the subject: ‘Whether you will assist in giving currency to a silly, malignant falsehood is a question for your own consideration. To me it is a matter of perfect indifference.’ After the appearance of the second, he behaved equivocally. His first present to his wife on their marriage was a copy of ‘Junius's Letters,’ and he left sealed up for her at his death a copy of ‘Junius Identified.’ She states that he never claimed to be Junius, but gives statements on his authority as to the circumstances of writing the letters, which could hardly have been made without expressly claiming the authorship. He withdrew from Brooks's Club in order, as she thought, to avoid awkward questions, and repelled direct inquiries with his usual severity. The anecdotes of Lady Francis (see, ii. 386–400) seem to establish this, although little reliance can be placed upon details.

Francis lived during his later years in St. James's Square, a place endeared to him, according to Lady Francis, because he had there acted as Chatham's amanuensis. He was known in society for his caustic humour, his intolerance of bores and long stories (which once led him to snub the prince regent), his real or affected penuriousness, and his old-fashioned gallantry to ladies. He suffered at the end from a painful disease, but retained his faculties to the last, and died quietly in his sleep 23 Dec. 1818.

A portrait of Francis by Hoppner is engraved in the first volume of Parkes and Merivale, and a caricature in the second. Francis had six children by his first wife: Sarah (b. 1763, died unmarried), Elizabeth (b. 1764, died unmarried 14 July 1804), Harriet (b. 1766, died unmarried 2 Jan. 1803), Philip (b. 1768, married Eliza Jane, daughter of Godshall Johnson of Putney, and left issue), Mary (b. 1770, married 1792 Godshall Johnson of Putney, who died 1800), and Catherine (b. 1772, married George James Cholmondeley).

Francis, whether Junius or not, was a man of great ability and unflagging industry; arrogant and vindictive in the extreme; unscrupulous in gratifying his enmities by covert insinuations and false assertions, yet courageous in attacking great men; rigid and even pedantic in his adherence to a set of principles which had their generous side; really scornful of meanness and corruption in others; and certainly doing much to vindicate the power of public opinion, although from motives which were not free from selfishness and the narrowest personal ambition. There may have been two such men, whose careers closely coincided during Francis's most vigorous period; but it seems more probable that there was only one.

Early collections of the letters of Junius were published by Newbery as the ‘Political Convert,’ 1769 (containing the Draper controversy); by Almon, ‘Collection of Letters of Atticus, Lucius, Junius, and Others,’ 1769; by A. Thomson, ‘A Complete Collection of Junius's Letters’ (reissued with additions). For a list of early editions see ‘Notes and Queries,’ 6th ser. v. 282, 342. Wheble printed collections 1770, 1771, 1772, 1775, the first without printer's name. The author's edition appeared in 1772. In 1783 appeared the new edition mentioned above. An edition by Robert Heron (for whom see Notes and Queries, 1st ser. vi. 445) appeared in 1802, another (with additions) in 1804, and Almon's edition appeared in 1806. The edition by George Woodfall, son of Henry Sampson Woodfall, 3 vols. 8vo, 1812, was edited with an anonymous introduction by J. Mason Good [q. v.] This edition included for the first time the private letters of Junius to H. S. Woodfall and to Wilkes. It also included a number of letters under different signatures not previously attributed to Junius. The publisher and editor had no private means of identifying Junius's letters; and some are almost certainly spurious. Others are identified by references in the private letters, or by the use of the letter ‘C.’ as a signature, or in notices to correspondents referring to letters. It is not certain that the same signature may not have been occasionally used by other correspondents. The identification is confirmed in a few cases by the letters to George Grenville (see above), which were not published till 1853. The original manuscripts of the letters to Woodfall and of a few of the later letters are now in the Woodfall MSS. in the British Museum, Addit. MSS. 27774–27788, where various other documents left by Woodfall are also preserved. Later editions of Junius are innumerable. The most convenient is Bohn's edition (1850 and later), edited by John Wade, which is a reprint of Woodfall's (1812) edition, with additional notes, taken in great part from Heron.

Francis printed separately many of his speeches in parliament, and the following pamphlets: ‘Letter to Lord North,’ 1793, and ‘Letter to Lord Howick,’ 1807, upon


text: Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/72


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/71

 Plate III.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/75

 Plate IV.


text: Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/76


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/79

 Plate V.


text: Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/80


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/83

 Plate VI.


text: Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/84


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/159

 u < •o If) H [-^ P5

ffl W Q en H D


text: Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/160


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/199

 • !> dy ■^ t^


text: Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/200


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/237

 Plate IX.

To face p. 206.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/189

 the press and for the stage. His plays were more numerous than original, but two of them met, through the excellence of the acting, with considerable success. He brought out in 1757 a periodical paper of his own composition entitled ‘The Centinel,’ and he was one of the contributors to Smollett's ‘Critical Review.’ Dr. Johnson and Sir Joshua Reynolds were among his friends, and through their influence he was exalted to the place of chaplain to the Royal Academy on its foundation, when he addressed the associates ‘in good old lyric commonplaces,’ and on Goldsmith's death in 1774 succeeded to the professorship of ancient history. It has been generally assumed that he was the ‘Tho. Franklin’ who signed the round-robin to Johnson on the Latin epitaph to Goldsmith; but Dr. Hill says, on account of the omission of the letter c in the name, and the difference in the handwriting from his acknowledged signature, ‘he certainly was not,’ but no other bearer of the name was sufficiently prominent among their friends to justify such a conspicuous honour. With the generality of literary men he was unpopular. One of his victims in the ‘Critical Review’ was Arthur Murphy, who solaced his feelings of indignation in ‘A Poetical Epistle to Samuel Johnson, A.M.,’ whereupon it is said that Francklin ‘had recourse to the law for protection, and swore the peace’ against Murphy (Biog. Dramatica, 1812 ed., i. 253–6). Churchill, in the ‘Rosciad,’ sneeringly says that ‘he sicken'd at all triumphs but his own,’ and in the poem of ‘The Journey,’ exclaims, with less reason, let Francklin, proud of some small Greek, Make Sophocles, disguis'd in English, speak. After a laborious life Francklin died in Great Queen Street, London, 15 March 1784. He married, on 20 Jan. 1759, Miss Venables, the daughter of a wine merchant; she died in Great Queen Street, 24 May 1796.

Francklin's most profitable works consisted of translations and tragedies. His first venture was an anonymous rendering of Cicero's treatise, ‘Of the Nature of the Gods,’ which appeared in 1741, was reissued in 1775, and, after revision by C. D. Yonge, formed a part of one of the volumes in Bohn's ‘Classical Library.’ In 1749 he published ‘The Epistles of Phalaris translated from the Greek; to which are added some select epistles of the most eminent Greek writers.’ His translation of the tragedies of Sophocles was long considered the best in the English language. It came out in 1759, and was reprinted in 1809 and 1832, large selections from it were included in Sanford's ‘British Poets,’ vol. l., and it has recently been included in Professor Henry Morley's ‘Universal Library’ (vol. xliv.), while a separate impression of the ‘Œdipus Tyrannus’ was struck off in 1806. Equal popularity attended his version of ‘The Works of Lucian from the Greek,’ which was produced in 1780 in two volumes, and appeared in a second edition in 1781. The whole work was dedicated to Rigby, the politician, and parts were inscribed to other eminent men, the most famous of whom were Bishop Douglas, Dr. Johnson, ‘the Demonax of the present age,’ Sir Joshua Reynolds, and Edmund Burke. His translation of Lucian's ‘Trips to the Moon’ forms vol. lxxi. of Cassell's ‘National Library,’ edited by Professor Henry Morley. Francklin's plays are: 1. ‘The Earl of Warwick,’ which was produced at Drury Lane Theatre on 13 Dec. 1766, and was often represented. On its first appearance Mrs. Yates created a great impression in the part of Margaret of Anjou, and Mrs. Siddons in later years made that character equally successful. The whole play, which is said to have been taken without any acknowledgment from the French of La Harpe, was printed in 1766 and 1767, and was included in the collections of Bell, Mrs. Inchbald, Dibdin, and many others. 2. ‘Matilda,’ first presented at Drury Lane on 21 Jan. 1775, was also profitable to the author, as is shown in the balance-sheet in Garrick's ‘Correspondence,’ ii. 44. It appeared in print in 1775, and was also included in several theatrical collections. 3. ‘The Contract,’ brought out at the Haymarket on 12 June 1776, and printed in the same year, was a failure, although it deserved a better fate. The chief characters were two persons who had made a contract of marriage, parted, and on meeting again after many years, wished the engagement broken off. 4. ‘Mary Queen of Scots,’ which was several times announced but was never acted, and remained in manuscript until 1837, when it was edited by the author's eldest son, Lieutenant-colonel William Francklin [q. v.], once of the Hon. East India Company's service.

Francklin's other literary productions were very numerous. Their titles were: 1. ‘Translation,’ a poem, 1753, which condemned many previous attempts at translation, and appealed to abler men to undertake the task, ending with the preliminary puff of his proposal to print by subscription a version of Sophocles. 2. ‘Enquiry into the Astronomy and Anatomy of the Ancients,’ 1749, and said to have been reprinted in 1775. 3. ‘Truth and Falsehood, a Tale,’ 1755, issued anonymously, and panegyrising the then Duchess of Bedford. 4. ‘The Centinel,’ 1757 fol., 1758 12mo, a periodical paper, one


text: Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/238


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/190

 of the numberless imitations of the ‘Tatler’ and ‘ Spectator.’ 5. ‘A Dissertation on Ancient Tragedy,’ 1760, given gratis to the subscribers to his translation of Sophocles. 6. ‘A Letter to a Bishop concerning Lectureships,’ ‘a piece of humour’ on the manner of election to such posts, and the miserable pay attaching thereto. Between 1748 and 1779 Francklin printed nine single sermons preached on charitable and special occasions, the most important of which was that delivered at St. George's, Bloomsbury, in May 1756, on the death of the Rev. John Sturges, from which it appears that he had hoped to succeed him in that position. An entire volume of his sermons on ‘The Relative Duties’ was published in 1765, and passed into a fourth edition in 1788. He died without leaving adequate provision for his family, and in 1785 there appeared for his widow's relief two volumes of ‘ Sermons on Various Subjects,’ followed by a third in 1787. Francklin lent his name, in conjunction with Smollett, to a translation of Voltaire's works and letters, but the ‘Orestes’ (produced at Covent Garden Theatre 13 March 1769 for the benefit of Mrs. Yates) and the ‘Electra’ (brought out at Drury Lane 15 Oct. 1774) are believed to have been his sole share in the publication. Some of his fugitive pieces were embodied in the ‘Miscellaneous Pieces’ brought together by Tom Davies, and there are many of his letters in the ‘Garrick Correspondence.’

[Welch's Westm. School (1852 ed.), pp. 311, 321, 326; Forshall's Westminster, pp. 108–9, 229–30; Hill's Boswell, i. 355, iii. 83, iv. 34; Cussans's Hertfordshire, vol. i. pt. i. p. 154; Taylor's Sir Joshua Reynolds, i. 261–2, 310, 317, ii. 73, 162; Gent. Mag. 1759, p. 45, 1784, pt. i. pp. 238–9, 1796, pt. i. p. 446; Genest, v. 119–120, 242–6, 441–7, 528–9; Churchill's Works (1804), i. 7–8, 82, ii. 367; Nichols's Lit. Anecd. ii. 594, vi. 425; Hasted's Kent, i. 381; Records of Trin. Coll. Cambr.]

FRANCKLIN, WILLIAM (1763–1839), orientalist, born in 1763, was the eldest son of Thomas Francklin (1721–1784) [q. v.], by his wife Miss Venables. He was admitted on the foundation at Westminster in 1777, whence he was elected to Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1781. Preferring to engage in the profession of arms, he was admitted a cadet in the service of the East India Company in 1782, appointed ensign of the 19th regiment of Bengal native infantry 31 Jan. 1783, lieutenant 20 Oct. 1789, captain in the army 7 June 1796, captain in his regiment 30 Sept. 1803, major in the army 25 April 1808, major in his regiment 29 March 1810, lieutenant-colonel in the army 4 June 1814, and in his regiment on 16 Dec. of the same year. On being invalided, 1 Oct. 1815, he was made regulating officer at Bhaugulpore. He retired in India in December 1825, and died 12 April 1839, aged 76. A distinguished officer, Francklin also enjoyed considerable reputation as an oriental scholar. In 1786 he made a tour in Persia, in the course of which he resided for eight months at Shiraz as an inmate of a Persian family, and was thus enabled to communicate a fuller account of the manners of the people than had before appeared. His journal was published as ‘Observations made on a Tour from Bengal to Persia in … 1786–7; with a short account of the remains of the … Palace of Persepolis,’ 4to, Calcutta, 1788 (reprinted in vol. ix. of J. Pinkerton's ‘General Collection of Voyages,’ 4to, 1808, &c.). A French version, ‘Voyage du Bengal à Chyraz,’ was published in vols. ii. and iii. of ‘Collection portative de voyages traduits de différentes langues orientales,’ 12mo, Paris [1797, &c.]. His next work, ‘The History of the Reign of Shah-Aulum, the present Emperor of Hindostan. … With an Appendix,’ 4to, London, 1798, serves as an important continuation of the ‘Seir ul Mutákherin, or History of Modern Times.’ Francklin also published: 1. ‘The Loves of Camarúpa and Cámalatà, an ancient Indian Tale … translated from the Persian’ [version by Na'ámat Allah?], 12mo, London, 1793. 2. ‘Remarks and Observations on the Plain of Troy, made during an Excursion in June 1799,’ 4to, London, 1800. 3. ‘ Military Memoirs of Mr. George Thomas, who … rose … to the rank of a General in the service of the native powers in … India. … Compiled and arranged from Mr. Thomas's original documents (Appendix),’ 4to, Calcutta, 1803; 8vo, London, 1805. 4. ‘Tracts, Political, Geographical, and Commercial; on the dominions of Ava, and the North-Western parts of Hindostaun,’ 8vo, London, 1811. 5. ‘Miscellaneous Remarks, in two parts: 1st. On Vincent's Geography of Susiana. 2nd. Supplementary Note on the Site of the ancient City of Palibothra,’ 4to, Calcutta, 1813. 6. ‘Inquiry concerning the Site of ancient Palibothra,’ &c. 4 pts. 4to, London, 1815–22. 7. ‘Researches on the Tenets and Doctrines of the Jeynes and Boodhists; conjectured to be the Brachmanes of ancient India. In which is introduced a discussion on the worship of the serpent in various countries of the world,’ 4to, London, 1827. To vol. iv. of ‘Asiatick Researches’ (1795), pp. 419–32, he contributed ‘An Account of the present State of Delhi;’ while to vol. ii. of ‘Miscellaneous Translations from Oriental Languages,’ published in 1834 by the Oriental


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/243

 (u ^/«> lb Miifiir'irnr-' • r" >:f^; /^^■■^■^^ ■^^•^ -'■"- ■ lii^ •*i V.J- "'f '^' '*; ■ . " w-^^i^ ■ 1
 * 7'


text: Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/244


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/267

 TREE NEAR NING CHING, CHIHLI. To face p. 232.


text: Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/268


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/196

 and is told in more accurate detail in ‘Sir C. H. Frankland, or Boston in the Colonial Times,’ by Elias Nason (8vo, 1865; see also Appleton's Journal, 1873, x. 273), and a direct descendant of Oliver Cromwell, being the great-grandson of his daughter Frances. He is described on his passing certificate, 3 Nov. 1737, as being upwards of twenty years of age, and as having been at sea for six years and eleven days. After serving as a lieutenant of the Chatham, with Captain Philip Vanbrugh, and of the Cumberland, with Captain James Steuart, both on the home station, he was promoted, in July 1740, to the command of the Rose frigate, and was sent out to the Bahamas, on which station, including the coast of Florida and Carolina, he remained till the summer of 1745. During this time he captured several of the enemy's vessels, privateers and guarda-costas, including one, in June 1742, commanded by Juan de Leon Fandino, the man who cut off Jenkins's ear in 1731, and who now, with a mixed crew of ‘ Indians, mulattoes, and negroes,’ made a long and resolute defence against the very superior force; and another, in December 1744, ‘whose principal loading consisted in pistoles, a few chests of dollars, and a great deal of wrought gold and silver; the quantity was so great that the shares were delivered by weight, to save the trouble of counting it’ (, i. 282). As the prize was not condemned by legal process, the value does not seem to have been clearly known, but after the treasure and the rest of the cargo were disposed of, two accidental finds of thirty thousand and twenty thousand pistoles were looked on as comparative trifles. In October 1746 Frankland was appointed to the Dragon of 60 guns, which he commanded on the Leeward Islands station till the peace. In 1755 he was again sent out to the West Indies, as commodore at Antigua, with his broad pennant in the Winchester. His arrival on his station was marked by a disagreement with his predecessor, Commodore Pye, who, being junior to Frankland, had committed the mistake of keeping his broad pennant flying in Frankland's presence, and was ‘excessively angry’ that Frankland would not allow it. He had also, in Frankland's opinion, been guilty, during the time of his command, of several gross irregularities, which Frankland officially reported, and which, on Pye's return to England, were inquired into by a court-martial [see ]. It has been said that in this matter Frankland was moved by a personal dislike to Pye rather than by zeal for the service; but though his account may have been thus rendered more harsh, it is consonant with the general tenor of his service and character. His determination to maintain his own rights and the prescribed regulations is best illustrated by his reply to an official letter indicating the wish of the first lord of the admiralty with respect to some patronage which Frankland, after his promotion to the rank of rear-admiral, conceived to belong to himself as commander-in-chief. ‘You will please,’ he wrote to the secretary of the admiralty on 12 May 1757, ‘to acquaint Lord Temple that I have friends of my own to provide for; … it is a privilege I never have or can give up.’ The admiralty took an early opportunity of recalling him; he returned to England in the following October, and had no further employment at sea, though rising in due course to the ranks of vice-admiral and admiral. In 1768, on the death of his elder brother, Sir Charles Henry, he succeeded to the baronetcy. In 1749 he had been elected as member of parliament for Thirsk, which he continued to represent, not taking any active part in politics, but speaking occasionally, and very much to the point, on naval matters; as, for instance, on the iniquities which pervaded the system of government contracts, 11 March 1779, and on the navy estimates, 17 June 1784. He died shortly after this last effort, on 21 Nov. He married, in May 1743, Sarah, daughter of Judge Rhett of South Carolina, by whom he had a large family.

[Official Letters and other Documents in the Public Record Office; Charnock's Biog. Nav. v. 18; Beatson's Nav. and Mil. Memoirs; Burke's Peerage and Baronetage.]

FRANKLIN, ELEANOR ANNE (1797?–1825), poetess, first wife of John (afterwards Sir John) Franklin [q. v.], was daughter of William Porden, an architect of some eminence, and one of a line of architects. She early developed a taste for poetry and art, and while still a girl published ‘The Veils, or the Triumph of Constancy, a poem in 6 Books’ (8vo, 1815). A short poem on the Arctic expedition (8vo, 1818), and a visit to the Trent, then just come home, brought her the acquaintance of John Franklin. The acquaintance was renewed on Franklin's return from his first journey through Arctic America, and on 19 Aug. 1823 she became his wife. She had previously published another and more ambitious work, ‘Cœur=de Lion, an Epic poem in 16 cantos’ (2 vols. 8vo, 1822). On her marriage there was, we are told, a distinct understanding that she would ‘never, under any circumstances, seek to turn her husband aside from the duty he owed to his country and his profession’ (A Brave Man, p. 18), a promise that she held even to the death. On 3 June 1824 she gave birth


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/197

 to a daughter; she seems never to have recovered her health, fell into a decline, and died on 22 Feb. 1825, six days after her husband had left England on his second journey through North America. Mrs. Franklin's poetry obtained in its day a certain social success, but it has none of the elements of vitality, and is now quite forgotten. Her versification is, however, smooth, and shows a delicate and cultivated mind. During her girlhood and short married life she gathered round her a pleasant society of men distinguished in art, literature, or science, and her correspondence not infrequently occurs in the memoirs of that time. She was always keen in the pursuit of knowledge and bright in conversation, but was qualified to retort one day at the Royal Institution, when she heard some one suggest that ‘the young ladies had far better stay at home and make a pudding,’ ‘We did that before we came out.’ A portrait is in the possession of the Gell family.

FRANKLIN, JANE, (1792–1875), second wife of Sir  [q. v.], whom she married on 5 Nov. 1828, was one of three daughters of John Griffin of Bedford Place. Before her marriage she was in the habit of accompanying her father in his frequent journeys both in England and on the continent. Shortly after her marriage Franklin was appointed to the command of a frigate in the Mediterranean, and during the time she travelled in Syria, Asia Minor, and other parts adjacent, joining her husband as opportunity offered. She afterwards accompanied him to Van Diemen's Land, and appears to have travelled not only over the whole of that island, but also in Australia and New Zealand. But she also devoted herself very earnestly to the improvement of the condition of the female convicts, on which, as well as on measures for the good of the honest labouring population, she is said to have expended very considerable sums. When apprehensions as to the safety of Sir John Franklin began to be felt, she was naturally one of the first to take alarm, and as early as 1848 stimulated the search both by personal influence and by the offer of a reward of 2,000l. Between 1850 and 1857 she fitted out, mainly if not entirely at her own expense, no less than five ships for the search (, Polar Regions, p. 174); the last of these, the Fox, being the one that succeeded in bringing back the story of the lost expedition. To this work she devoted a very large part of her property. At this period, too, she seems to have sought relief from oppressing anxiety in constant travel. Her journeys embraced almost the whole of the civilised world, including Japan and Nevada. It was not, however, these that the Royal Geographical Society recognised in conferring on her their founder's medal in 1860, but rather the zeal and self-sacrifice with which she had maintained the search for the missing ships, and the success which, in 1859, had rewarded her efforts. She continued occasionally to attend the meetings of the society, where she was always an honoured guest. During the last months of her life she had been much occupied with the outfit of the Pandora yacht, which she had sent to try and make the north-west passage by the route on which her husband had failed. The Pandora failed also, but Lady Franklin did not live to hear the result. Her very last work was the completion of a monument to her husband's memory in Westminster Abbey. She wished to compose his epitaph, but thoughts and words would not flow in unison, and the task was completed by Lord Tennyson, Franklin's nephew by marriage. It was unveiled a fortnight after her death, and a note added by Dean Stanley tells that it was ‘erected by his widow, who, after long waiting and sending many in search of him, herself departed to seek and to find him in the realms of light, 18 July 1875, aged 83 years.’

FRANKLIN, JOHN (1786–1847), Arctic explorer, the twelfth and youngest son of Willingham Franklin of Spilsby in Lincolnshire, was born on 16 April 1786. It had been intended to bring him up for the church, but a holiday visit to the seashore excited a strong desire to go to sea, which his father vainly endeavoured to overcome by sending him for a voyage in a merchant vessel as far as Lisbon. On his return he entered the royal navy on board the Polyphemus, then just sailing for the Baltic, where she played a leading part in the battle of Copenhagen. Two months later Franklin was appointed as a midshipman to the Investigator, under the command of his cousin, [q. v.], and on the point of sailing for Australia. While in the Investigator Franklin distinguished himself by his remarkable aptitude for nautical and as-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/198

 tronomical observations; he was employed at Sydney as assistant in a little observatory which Flinders established, and won the notice of Captain King, the governor, who used to address him familiarly as Mr. Tycho Brahe. When the ship's company was broken up after the wreck of the Porpoise, Franklin accompanied Lieutenant Fowler to China in the Rolla, and, taking a passage home in the East India Company's ship Earl Camden, was with Commodore Dance in his extraordinary engagement with Linois (15 Feb. 1804), on which occasion Fowler commanded on the lower deck and Franklin took charge of the signals [see ]. On arriving in England Franklin was appointed to the Bellerophon [see, 1763–1805], in which he was present in the battle of Trafalgar, again having charge of the signals, and being one of the few on the Bellerophon's poop who escaped unhurt. Two years later he joined the Bedford, and, continuing in her after his promotion to lieutenant's rank (11 Feb. 1808), was employed on the home station till the peace in 1814, when the ship was ordered to North America, to form part of the expedition against New Orleans. In a boat attack on some gunboats in Lac Borgne Franklin was slightly wounded; and he had besides a full share in the laborious duties of the campaign. Its failure may account for the fact that no attention was paid to the strong recommendation of Sir John Lambert, in command of the troops with which he had been serving, and that he remained a lieutenant, serving on board the Forth frigate, with Sir William Bolton, Nelson's nephew. With Franklin's appointment in January 1818 to command the hired brig Trent, fitting out to accompany Captain Buchan in the Dorothea, Franklin's career as an Arctic explorer commenced. Their instructions were to pass between Spitzbergen and Greenland, use their best endeavours to reach the pole, and thence, if possible, to shape a course direct for Behring's Straits. The two ships sailed on 25 April, sighted Spitzbergen on 26 May, and passed without difficulty along its western coast; they were then stopped by the ice, and, being driven into the pack on 30 July, the Dorothea received so much damage as to be in momentary danger of foundering. They got into Dane's Gat, where such repairs as were possible were executed, but it was still very doubtful whether she could live through the passage home, and further contact with the ice was clearly out of the question. Buchan's instructions fully authorised him in this contingency to move into the Trent and send the Dorothea home; but he was unwilling to appear to desert his shipmates in a time of great danger. The Dorothea's state was such as to forbid her being sent home unattended, and Franklin's request that he might be allowed to go on rendered the task of superseding him the more disagreeable. So Buchan judged rightly that his proper course was to take the Dorothea home, with the Trent in close attendance on her. They arrived in England on 22 Oct.

Early in the following year Franklin was appointed to the command of an exploring expedition to be sent out with the general idea of amending the very defective geography of the northern part of America, and with more particular instructions ‘to determine the latitudes and longitudes of the northern coast of North America, and the trendings of that coast from the mouth of the Coppermine River to the eastern extremity of that continent.’ The details of the route from York Factory, named as a starting-point, were left to Franklin's judgment, guided by the advice he should receive from the agents of the Hudson's Bay Company, who would be instructed to co-operate with the expedition, and to provide it with guides, hunters, clothing, and ammunition. The small party, including Dr. (afterwards Sir John) Richardson [q. v.], Hood and Back, midshipmen [see ], the last of whom had been with Franklin in the Trent, two seamen, and four Orkney boatmen, landed at York on 30 Aug. 1819, and started on 9 Sept. The scheme was, with portable boats or canoes, to follow the line of rivers and lakes, beginning with the Nelson and Saskatchewan, and ending with the Elk, Slave, and Coppermine. At Cumberland House, a long-established station on the Saskatchewan, it was found that further progress that season was impossible. One of the seamen and the Orkneymen were sent back, and, leaving Hood and Richardson to bring on the boats when the way should be open, Franklin and Back started on foot for Fort Chipewyan on the shore of Lake Athabasca, which they reached on 26 March 1820. It was Franklin's intention to make all arrangements for an onward march as soon as the boats should arrive. He now found that owing to the rivalry, amounting almost to war, between the two trading companies which disputed the territory, no supplies were available; and, when the boats came on, the expedition left Fort Chipewyan on 18 July with little more than one day's provisions and with a scanty supply of powder. On 2 Aug. they left Fort Providence on the northern shore of Great Slave Lake, the party consisting, what with Canadian voyageurs and interpreters, of twenty-eight men, besides three women and three children. The


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/28

 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS.

last year I had the honour of addressing you from this Chair, I ventured to prophesy that in a year's time the Council would be able to come before you with proposals for some definite work which should employ and concentrate the energies of the Society at large. I am now so fortunate as to find my prophecy fulfilled. You will have seen from the Annual Report, now before you, that the Council feel with me that the time has come for an endeavour to present the world with some authoritative corpus of British Folklore. A full and complete record can hardly be obtained until the series of County Folklore is completed; but that can hardly be in the lifetime of many of us here present, and meanwhile, in the picturesque language of the folk, "while the grass grows, the horse starves." We have, therefore, resolved, at the suggestion of Mr. Crooke, to undertake the very serious and important task of bringing out a new edition of the Calendar Customs portion of the work well known to us all as Brand's Antiquities. The history of the book, however, is not so well known. The nucleus of it is a little treatise on the local popular beliefs and customs, compiled by the Rev. Henry Bourne, Curate of All Saints, Newcastle-on-Tyne, in 1725. Fifty-two years later (in 1777), this was enlarged and added to by the Rev. John Brand, subsequently Secretary to the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/199

 next day they were joined by a large party of Indian hunters, under a chief Akaitcho. The progress was very slow, and the winter came on earlier than usual. By 25 Aug. the pools were beginning to freeze, and, though Franklin was anxious at all hazards to push on to the sea and establish himself for the winter at the mouth of the Coppermine, he yielded to the very urgent remonstrances of Akaitcho, and wintered in a hut which is still shown on the map as Fort Enterprise. It was not till 14 June 1821 that the ice gave way sufficiently for them to launch their canoes on the Coppermine, and to bid farewell to Akaitcho and his Indians. By 14 July they came within sight of the sea, and on the 21st embarked for their voyage in the Arctic Ocean. And so to the eastward in a tedious navigation along the coast, naming Cape Barrow and Cape Flinders, as far as Cape Turnagain, which they reached on 18 Aug.; when Franklin, finding that his resources would admit neither of going on nor of going back to the Coppermine, determined to take his way by a river to which he gave the name of his young companion, Hood. Hood's river was soon found to be impracticable for navigation. They took the large canoes to pieces, built two small ones which they could carry with them, reduced their baggage as much as possible, and began their march for Fort Providence through the country which has the distinction of being labelled, even in the Arctic, as ‘Barren Grounds.’ The story of their sufferings is one of the most terrible on human record. Cold, hunger, and fatigue broke down even the strongest of the party. Some died, some were murdered—poor Hood among the number, one was put to death as the murderer. In their last extremity Franklin and Richardson fell in with Akaitcho, who fed them, took care of them, and brought them in safety to Fort Providence on 11 Dec. Back and the miserable remnant of their party joined a few days later. They rested there for some months, and reached York again on 14 June 1822. ‘Thus terminated,’ wrote Franklin, ‘our long, fatiguing, and disastrous travels in North America, having journeyed by water and land (including our navigation of the Polar Sea) 5,550 miles.’

In the following October Franklin, with his companions, arrived in England. He had already, during his absence (1 Jan. 1821), been made a commander; he was now (20 Nov.) advanced to post rank, in recognition of his labours and sufferings; he was also elected a fellow of the Royal Society. Richardson was appointed surgeon of the Chatham division of marines, and Back, who had been promoted to be a lieutenant, after three Arctic winters was sent out to the West Indies to be thawed. Franklin employed his time in England in writing the narrative of his journey, which was published early in the following year, and at once took its place among the most classic of books of travel. He also wooed and, in August 1823, was married to Miss Porden [see ]. Early in 1824 Franklin laid before the admiralty a scheme for another expedition, which might benefit by his previous experience, and possibly co-operate with the more purely naval expedition then fitting out under the command of Captain Parry [see ]. Franklin proposed that during the course of 1824 and the early months of 1825 stores, together with a party of English seamen, should be sent on in advance as far as possible; that he himself, starting in the spring, should go from New York to Lake Huron, and take on from the naval establishment there such further supplies as were available; and so, picking up his party as he proceeded, make his way to the Great Bear Lake, down the Mackenzie river, and along the coast westward as far as Kotzebue Sound, where a ship might be sent to meet him. In accordance with this the instructions were drawn out; the Blossom was commissioned for the service in Behring's Straits [see ]; and the previous arrangements having been made, Franklin, again with Back and Richardson, and with Mr. Kendall, a mate, as a third colleague, sailed from Liverpool on 16 Feb. 1825.

His wife, who had some months before given birth to a daughter, was now in an advanced decline; but he had probably persuaded himself that her illness was not necessarily mortal, and was much shocked by the news of her death, which reached him at the station on Lake Huron. He pushed on to join his advanced party with the boats, which he found near Fort Methy on 29 June. On 7 Aug. they reached Fort Norman on the Mackenzie, and leaving a party to build huts by Great Bear Lake, Franklin himself went down the river, a run of six days, to the sea; and landing on an island—which he named Garry Island, after the deputy-governor of the Hudson's Bay Company—he there planted the British flag, a silk union-jack which had been worked for the express purpose by his deceased wife. ‘I will not,’ he wrote, ‘attempt to describe my emotions as it expanded to the breeze.’ For the sake of his companions, however, he endeavoured to simulate cheerfulness; and after examining the archipelago at the mouth of the river, returned to


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/29

 Rh Society of Antiquaries. Mr. Brand continued to accumulate materials for the enrichment of the work, but at his death in 1806 these were still in Ms. They came eventually into the hands of Sir Henry Ellis, who added considerably to them, rewrote and rearranged them on a new plan, and published them in two quarto volumes in 1813. He then further enlarged and published them in 1841 in the three-volume edition familiar as Ellis s Brand. Several crimes have since then been committed in the name of Brand, but Sir Henry Ellis's still remains the standard edition, and the standard work on the folklore of Great Britain. Much water has, however, flowed under London Bridge since 1841 and 1848, the date of his last recension, and the time seems ripe for a new and fuller edition of the historic work. The Council propose for the present to confine themselves to the Calendar Customs. These, it is suggested, should be collated with certain notes by Brand and Ellis left still in Ms., with Hone's Every Day Book and Table Book, with Chambers' Book of Days, the old volumes known as Time's Telescope, the publications of our own Society, Notes and Queries, the collections of the late Canon Benham contributed to the Church Times, and with local works of all sorts. Further, the information should be brought up to date, and customs now extinct be distinguished from those still existing.

Mr. Henry B. Wheatley, a member of the Council, who has been a member of the Society from very early days, and whose special qualifications for the work need no explanation or recommendation from me, has kindly consented to act as Honorary Editor, with the assistance of a competent staff of sub-editors. But a whole army of readers, collectors, and correspondents will be needed for some years to come, if the work is to be done in a manner worthy of the Society and the subject. It will mean a long pull, and a strong pull, and a pull all together, and no member should be deterred by diffidence from offering to


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/200

 the winter quarters, which he had intended naming Fort Reliance, but which, in his absence, the officers had named Fort Franklin.

The winter passed not unpleasantly; they had a sufficiency of clothing and food, and were able to keep open their communications with the posts of the Hudson's Bay Company, and to get occasional letters from home. As the summer approached, their preparations for the coming voyage were made, and they started on 24 June 1826, with the boats provisioned for eighty days at full allowance. At the head of the delta on 3 July they separated, Richardson and Kendall going eastwards as far as the Coppermine River and returning to Fort Franklin overland; while Franklin and Back went westwards, examining the coast as far as Point Beechey, in longitude 149° 37߱′W. It was then 16 Aug.; there appeared no possibility of fetching Kotzebue Inlet; the hazard of shipwreck increased each day; wintering on the coast, as was suggested in their instructions, was out of the question; and a winter journey overland to Fort Franklin was an alternative which Franklin's past experience warned him against. One of the Blossom's boats had at this time advanced to the immediate neighbourhood of Point Barrow, but of this Franklin was of course ignorant; fortunately so, he thought afterwards; for otherwise he would have advanced, but would, in all probability, have been unable to overtake the Blossom's party. As it was, he returned to Fort Franklin by the way he had come. Richardson had been before him and had started again on a geologising expedition to Great Slave Lake. Franklin, remaining at the fort till 20 Feb. 1827, set out on foot for Fort Chipewyan, whence on 18 June he reached Cumberland House. There he rejoined Richardson, and the two, returning by way of Montreal and New York, where they were splendidly fêted, arrived in Liverpool on 26 Sept. The rest of the expedition, which had lost only two men, arrived at Portsmouth a fortnight later in charge of Captain Back. The journey, not so exciting nor so tragic as the former, had been even richer in geographical results, as was fully shown when the narrative was published in 1828. The Geographical Society of Paris awarded Franklin their gold medal; on 29 April 1829 he received the honour of knighthood; and at the summer convocation, the university of Oxford conferred on him the honorary degree of D.C.L. It was also during this period of relaxation that, on 5 Nov. 1828, he married Miss Griffin [see ].

From August 1830 to December 1833 Franklin commanded the Rainbow frigate on the Mediterranean station, and during most of the time was employed on the coast of Greece, a service for which he received the order of the Redeemer of Greece, and afterwards (25 Jan. 1836) the Hanoverian Guelphic order. In the summer of 1836 he was appointed lieutenant-governor of Van Diemen's Land, and arrived at Hobart Town on 6 Jan. 1837. The period of his government, extending over nearly seven years, was marked by many measures for the social and moral improvement of the colony, then still, to a great extent, a convict station. The condition of the convicts more especially was a subject which much occupied his attention, and his endeavours for humanising them were strenuously aided by the exertions and the liberal expenditure of his wife. For the better class of colonists he established a scientific society which has developed into the present Royal Society of Hobart Town; and not only founded but largely endowed a college, for which, at his request, Dr. Arnold of Rugby selected a head-master. By the colonists, as a body, he was much beloved. At the close of his period of service he embarked at Hobart Town on 3 Nov. 1843, ‘amidst,’ he wrote, ‘a burst of generous and enthusiastic feeling.’ After visiting several places on the coast, he crossed over to Port Phillip, then a very recent settlement, from which he sailed 10 Jan. 1844, and arrived at Portsmouth in the following June.

Arctic exploration was exciting special interest. The Erebus and Terror had come home from a remarkable voyage to the Antarctic [see ], so that suitable ships were at once available there was, too, a stagnation in the shipping interest, and seamen were everywhere clamouring for employment. Back and Dease and Simpson and Ross had traced the northern coast-line of America almost in its entirety; little remained to be done to solve the problem of the north-west passage. Few capable men any longer doubted its actual existence; though whether, under any circumstances, it could be available for navigation was still problematical. The admiralty resolved on a naval expedition. There was at first some hesitation about the commander; but Franklin claimed the post, as being the senior officer of Arctic experience then in England. The first lord of the admiralty pointed out to him that he was sixty years of age. ‘No, no, my lord,’ answered Franklin, ‘only fifty-nine.’ ‘Before such earnestness all scruples yielded; the offer was officially made and accepted’ (, p. 285), and on 3 March 1845 Franklin commissioned the Erebus for ‘particular service,’ the Terror being at the same


text:
Page:The Grateful Dead.djvu/140

124 hero for his constancy and intelligence in the pursuit of his quest. A priori this conclusion would be expected from the general manner of folk-tales, and as a matter of fact it appears in all the versions which have come to my attention. The reward almost always takes the form of a princess, though the manner in which she is won varies very greatly. In the second place, Cosquin seems to regard The Golden Bird as a theme quite independent of The Water of Life This, I think, is to lose sight of the essential likeness between the two tales, despite their difference of introduction. As Dr. Wünsche notes, not only a bird, but a fruit or the water of death may be substituted for the usual object of the quest. Indeed, certain variants have more than one of these magical forces. To be sure, this superfluity of riches doubtless results from the fusion of subsidiary types, but none the less it points to the original unity of the central theme, which is all that I wish to suggest.

From this discussion we emerge with an outline of The Water of Life in something like the following form: A sick king has three sons, who go out to seek some magical water (or bird, or fruit) for his healing. The two older sons fall by the way into some misfortune due to their own fault; but the youngest, not without aid of one sort or another from beings with supernatural powers, succeeds in the quest and at the same time wins a princess as wife. While returning, he rescues his brothers, and is exposed by their envy and ingratitude to the loss of all he has gained (sometimes even of his

title: Page:The Grateful Dead.djvu/140


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 22, 1911.djvu/30

 16 take some small part in the work. What the book will eventually grow to, and in what form it will appear, must be left to the future. Meantime, Folk-Lore will go on as usual, and the County Folklore series will not be discontinued.

I have now to ask your attention to the revised edition of the Prospectus, copies of which have been forwarded to all members. In it the Council have endeavoured to formulate with greater precision the exact scope and limits of the Society's studies, and you will be asked to-night to sanction a revised wording of Rule I. in accordance with this definition. Even yet there are those who confound folklore with architectural antiquities on the one hand, and with dialects on the other. Others, who have arrived at some perception of its nature, still look upon it as a miscellaneous collection of odds and ends, interesting only to the mere dilettante, the intellectual bric-a-brac hunter, and are far from realizing that it is the product of an important phase of man's intellectual history, and, as such, most worthy the attention of all serious students of human nature.

For what is Folklore? The word itself answers the question. It is the learning of the people, the traditional lore of the folk,—whether among the backward races of mankind or among the backward classes of more advanced races. It is not folk-speech. It is not art or handicraft. It is the product of the Thought, the Idea, of early or barbaric man, expressed in word or in action, in Belief, Custom, Story, Song, or Saying. This is no mere arbitrary selection of subjects. On the contrary, it represents with tolerable completeness the mental activities of unlettered folk.

Let me try to show this by a concrete example. A traditional ballad, known by the name of the "Bitter Withy," has lately come to light in Herefordshire and the adjoining counties (and in one case in Sussex), where it is


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/201

 time commissioned by Captain Crozier [see ].

The two ships, fitted, for the first time in the annals of Arctic exploration, with auxiliary screws, and provisioned (as it was believed) for three years, sailed together from Greenhithe on 18 May, with instructions to make their way to about 74° N., 98° W., in the vicinity of Cape Walker, and thence to the southward and westward in a course as direct to Behring's Straits as ice and land might permit. ‘It was well known,’ wrote Sherard Osborn in 1859, ‘that this southern course was that of Franklin's predilection, founded on his judgment and experience. There are many in England who can recollect him pointing on his chart to the western entrance of Simpson Strait and the adjoining coast of North America and saying, “If I can but get down there, my work is done; thence it's plain sailing to the westward.”’ In the beginning of July the ships were at Disco, and Fitzjames, the commander of the Erebus, wrote on the 12th ‘that Sir John was delightful;’ that both officers and men were in good spirits and of excellent material (, p. 286). On 26 July the ships parted from an Aberdeen whaler off the entrance of Lancaster Sound; a fair wind bore them away westward, and they vanished into the unknown. Over their movements a dark curtain settled down, which was raised slowly and with difficulty, nor was it fully lifted for fourteen years.

As early as the winter of 1846–7 there were gloomy anticipations; and though it was maintained at the admiralty that, as the ships were provisioned for three years, there were no grounds for anxiety, popular feeling so far prevailed that in the summer of 1847 large supplies, under the charge of Sir John Richardson and Dr. Rae, were sent out to Hudson's Bay to be conveyed by the inland water route to the mouth of the Mackenzie or of the Coppermine, or to other stations on the coast. As the winter of 1847–8 passed by without any news of the ships, a very real uneasiness was felt. With the spring of 1848 began a series of relief and search expeditions, both public and private, English and American, which has no parallel in maritime annals, and which, while prosecuting the main object of the voyages, turned the map of the Arctic regions north of America from a blank void into a grim but distinct representation of islands, straits, and seas. These expeditions, of which a complete list is given by Richardson (Polar Regions, p. 172), may be summarised thus: One in 1847, that already mentioned from Hudson's Bay under Richardson and Rae; five in 1848; three in 1849; ten in 1850, including those sent out by the admiralty under Austin, Ommanney, Collinson, and McClure; two in 1851; nine in 1852, including the one under Sir Edward Belcher; five in 1853, including one in boats and sledges by Dr. Rae, and one into Smith's Sound by Dr. Kane of the United States Navy; two in 1854; one in 1855; and one, that of the Fox, in 1857.

In 1850 Captain Ommanney discovered on Beechey Island the traces of the missing ships having there passed their first winter, and at the same time vast stacks of preserved meat canisters, which, there was only too much reason to believe, had been found to be filled with putrid abomination, and had been there condemned by survey, thus fatally diminishing the three years' provisions which were supposed to be on board (ib. p. 163). Nothing further was learned till April 1854, when Dr. Rae, a factor of the Hudson's Bay Company, in a boat expedition carried on at the company's expense, gathered intelligence of a party of white men having been seen, four winters before, travelling over the ice near King William's Land, and of their bodies having been afterwards seen on the main land in the neighbourhood of a large river, presumably Back's Great Fish River. From the Eskimos who told him of this, Rae also obtained numerous small articles, silver spoons, &c., the marks on which clearly identified them as having belonged to officers of the Erebus and Terror; among others a small silver plate engraved ‘Sir John Franklin, K.C.H.’ (Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, 13 Nov. 1854, xxv. 250).

By these visible tokens the substantial truth of the story seemed to be fully confirmed, and the admiralty declined to enter on any further search. Others, however, were fain to hope that some survivors might still remain, and, chiefly by the personal exertions and at the personal cost of Lady Franklin, the Fox yacht was fitted out in 1857, under the command of Captain (now Admiral Sir) Leopold McClintock. She failed through the accident of the seasons to get into the prescribed locality in the first or second year. It was not till the early months of 1859 that McClintock and his colleagues, Lieutenant Hobson of the navy, and Captain (now Sir) Allen Young of the mercantile marine, came on distinct traces of the lost expedition. Numerous relics were then found: a boat, a few skeletons, chronometers, clothing, instruments, watches, plate, books; and at last, towards the end of May, a written paper, the contents of which, together with what was told by the Eskimos or could be argued by