text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/63

Rh were four to one against it, but they deceived me also.’ Valueless as his apologies may be, his own account of the motives which led him to continue sitting after the king's death is no doubt correct. ‘I make this candid confession, that it was my own baseness, cowardice, and unworthy fear to submit my life and estate to the mercy of those men that murdered the king, that hurried me on against my own conscience to act with them; yet then I thought that I might do some good, and hinder some ill.’

As speaker Lenthall was now theoretically the greatest man in the Commonwealth. When parliament and the council of state were entertained by the city, he took the highest place, and was received with quasi-regal ceremony (Commons' Journals, vi. 226; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1649–50, p. 174;, Sydney Papers, p. 73). Practically, however, he had very little power. Twice he made use of his casting vote in favour of condemned royalists: in the case of the Earl of Norwich (8 March 1649) and in that of Sir William D'Avenant (3 July 1650; Commons' Journals, vi. 160, 436). According to his own account he wished well to the cause of Charles II and secretly sent him advice, and he claims also to have used his influence in defence of the universities (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 713; Old Parliamentary History, xxiii. 372).

On 20 April 1653 Cromwell violently dissolved the Long parliament. Lenthall refused to vacate his chair until he was compelled. According to one account, Cromwell bade Colonel Harrison fetch him down, and Harrison pulled him by the gown and he came down (, Sydney Papers, p. 140). Other contemporary accounts agree that he was treated with greater respect (, Cromwellian Diary, iii. 209;, Cromwell and the English Commonwealth, i. 492). Harrison's own account was: ‘I went to the Speaker and told him, Sir, seeing things are brought to this pass, it is not requisite for you to stay there; he answered he would not come down unless he was pulled out; Sir, said I, I will lend you my hand, and he putting his hand into mine came down without any pulling, so that I did not pull him’ (Lives and Speeches of those Persons lately Executed, 1661, p. 9, 8vo). After this Lenthall for a time took no part in political life. He was not a member of the council of state established by the officers, nor of the ‘Little parliament.’ But when Cromwell became protector and summoned his first parliament, Lenthall was returned to it both for Gloucester city and Oxford county, electing finally to sit for the latter. ‘My intentions,’ he wrote to the corporation of Gloucester, ‘were not bent to so public an employment, having been thoroughly wearied by what I have already undergone’ (Hist. MSS. Comm. 12th Rep. ix. 508; Commons' Journals, vii. 381). When the parliament met he was unanimously voted to the chair, ‘in regard of his great experience and knowledge of the order of that house and dexterity in the guidance of it’ (ib. vii. 365;, Diary, i. xx). After its dissolution Lenthall, as one of the keepers of the great seal, came into collision with the protector. In August 1654 Cromwell had issued an ordinance for regulating and limiting the jurisdiction of the court of chancery. On 23 April 1655 the three commissioners of the seal were summoned before the council and commanded to proceed according to that ordinance. They drew up a summary of their objections to it and finally (1 May) a joint letter refusing obedience. But Lenthall before the letter was actually sent was sworn in as one of the six masters of the chancery appointed under the ordinance, and though he had protested ‘that he would be hanged at the Rolls gate before he would execute it,’ now ‘wheeled about’ and submitted. The other two, Widdrington and Whitelocke, persisted and were turned out (, Memorials, ed. 1853, iv. 192–206).

Lenthall was again returned for Oxford county to the parliament of 1656, but was not again elected speaker. He spoke several times in support of the government, was a member of the committee appointed to explain the reasons which moved parliament to offer Cromwell the crown, and delivered two speeches urging him to accept it. ‘His argument,’ says Ludlow, ‘was very parliamentary and rational, had it been rightly applied’ (Old Parliamentary History, xxi. 73, 91;, Memoirs, p. 586). Lenthall was not one of the persons originally summoned to Cromwell's House of Lords, and was ‘very much disturbed’ thereat. ‘He complained that he who had been for some years the first man of the nation, was now denied to be a member of either house of parliament; for he was incapable of sitting in the House of Commons by his place as master of the rolls, whereby he was obliged to sit as assistant in the other house.’ Cromwell hearing of his complaint sent him a writ, at which he was much elevated, thinking that himself and his heirs would be for ever peers of England (ib. p. 596).

On the fall of Richard Cromwell the officers determined to recall the Long parliament, and some members of the parlia-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/64

Rh ment, with a deputation from the council of the army, came to Lenthall (6 May 1659) to persuade him to return to his seat. He began to make excuses, ‘pleading his age, sickness, and inability to sit long,’ and alleging that he was not fully satisfied that the death of the late king had not put an end to that parliament. But according to Ludlow his real reason was that he was not willing to lose his peerage, and was in league with Richard Cromwell to prevent the parliament's restoration. They told him that if he would not issue his summons to the members, they would do so without him, and thus pressed he consented to head the forty-two members who took their places at Westminster on 7 May 1659 (, pp. 648–50; Commons' Journals, vii. 644; England's Confusion, 4to, 1659, p. 10).

In the restored Long parliament the speaker's position was greatly increased in dignity. On 6 June the house voted that ‘all military and naval commissions should be signed by the speaker in the name of the commonwealth of the parliament of England,’ instead of by the commander-in-chief. In pursuance of this vote the officers of the two services received new commissions, personally delivered to them by Lenthall in the presence of the house (Commons' Journals, vii. 672, 674, 675). A new great seal was made and delivered to Lenthall's custody as keeper (14 May) till commissioners should be appointed (ib. vii. 654, 728). On 13 Oct. 1659 Lambert and certain regiments of the army placed guards round Westminster, kept out the members who tried to enter, and stopped the speaker's coach at the gate of Palace Yard. Lieutenant-colonel Duckenfield asked him whither he was going. ‘To perform my duty at the house,’ answered Lenthall; then turning to the soldiers he demanded if they knew what they did, that he was their general, and expected to be obeyed by them. Some of them answered ‘that they knew no such thing; that if he had marched before them over Warrington-bridge they should have known him’ (, p. 726;, Original Letters, ii. 266). They even tried to convey him to Fleetwood's quarters at Wallingford House, and one story represents Lambert as taking the mace from him (ib.)

On 24 Dec. 1659 a new revolution took place. The soldiers in London assembled in Lincoln's Inn Fields and resolved to restore the parliament. ‘After this they marched in good order down Chancery Lane; at the Speaker's door they made a stand. … His Lordship came down to them in his gown to the gate in the street, where standing the officers as they passed with the forces made speeches to him … signifying their hearty sorrow for the great defection in this late interruption, with their absolute purpose of a firm adherence for the future; the like was done by the soldiers in their countenances and acclamations to the Speaker as they passed, owning him in words also as their general and the father of their country.’ Lenthall then issued orders to the soldiers, gave them the word for the night, took possession of the Tower and appointed commissioners for its government, and returned in triumph by torchlight to the Rolls House (Mercurius Politicus, 22–9 Dec. 1659). The parliament met again on 26 Dec. and thanked the speaker (29 Dec.) ‘for his very good service done for the commonwealth.’

These revolutions opened Lenthall's eyes to the possibility of a restoration, and he began at once to prepare for it. The republican party sought to impose on all members of parliament an oath abjuring the house of Stuart (Commons' Journals, vii. 803). According to Monck, Lenthall ‘very violently opposed, and in a great measure prevented, the oath’ (Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. p. 122; Old Parliamentary History, xxiii. 372). For ten days he absented himself from the house on the plea of gout, in order, as was supposed, to avoid responsibility for the Abjuration Bill (Commons' Journals, vii. 811, 843;, Mystery and Method of His Majesty's Restoration, ed. Maseres, p. 728). When Monck came to London, Lenthall gave him thanks in the name of the parliament, making ‘an eloquent oration agreeable to his own great prudence and the authority of that supreme assembly’ (Mercurius Politicus, 6 Feb. 1660). It is possible that before this he had been in secret communication with Monck; henceforth he certainly acted in agreement with him. The republican party passed an act for filling up the parliament by electing new members, and ordered the speaker to sign a warrant authorising the commissioners of the seal to send out writs according to custom (20 Feb.). This he positively refused to do, ‘submitting himself to their pleasure, if they should think fit to send him to the Tower, or to choose another person to be speaker in his place’ (, p. 842;, 20 Feb. 1660; Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. p. 122). They passed over his opposition, empowered the clerk to sign the warrant, and allowed him to keep his place. The next day Monck restored the secluded members, and the Restoration was made certain. It became simply a question of the terms on which it should take place, and finding, as he said, ‘that the king would be ruined for want of

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


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/65

Rh good advice,’ Lenthall sent the king a paper of instructions (28 March). Instead of treating with the presbyterians, he urged Charles to make proposals such as the people would accept, ‘but would have them proceed from the king as a free act of grace, which he offers to confirm to them by a free parliament, legally convened by a special commission, which the king must empower to issue out writs in his name,’ and proceeded to suggest the nature of these proposals (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 711–14, 720). Guizot describes Lenthall's counsels as remarkable for their impartiality and farsightedness (Richard Cromwell, ii. 191).

When the Convention parliament was summoned, Lenthall became a candidate for the representation of the university of Oxford, but in spite of two pressing letters from Monck he was not elected (, Life, ed. Clark, i. 311;, Register, pp. 100, 111, 112). Nor, though he sent 3,000l. to Charles II at Breda, could he succeed in retaining his office of master of the rolls (, iii. 16). The House of Commons resolved on 11 June 1660, by 215 to 126 votes, to include Lenthall among the twenty persons to be excepted from the act of indemnity for penalties not extending to life. But Monck drew up a strong certificate in his favour, stating his services in forwarding the Restoration, and the Earl of Norwich also exerted his influence for Lenthall. The House of Lords accordingly moderated the penalty, and merely incapacitated him from any office of trust in the three kingdoms (Old Parliamentary History, xxii. 347, 403; Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. p. 122). But, forgetful of his famous words to Charles I, he disgraced himself by appearing at the trial of the regicides as a witness against Thomas Scot, for words spoken in the House of Commons during his tenure of the chair (State Trials, v. 1003;, iii. 66). For the rest of his life he lived in retirement at Burford. He died on 3 Sept. 1662, and was attended in his last moments by Ralph Brideoake [q. v.], then vicar of Witney, to whom he confessed his penitence for his political career (Lenthall's ‘Confession’ was first printed in a letter in the Kingdom's Intelligencer, 8–15 Sept. 1662; it is reprinted in the Old Parliamentary History, xxiii. 371, and in the Memoirs of the two Last Years of the Reign of Charles I., 1702, and incorporated in Athenæ Oxonienses, iii. 608). In his will he directed that he should be buried ‘without any pomp or state, acknowledging myself to be unworthy of the least outward regard in this world, and unworthy of any remembrance that hath been so great a sinner. And I do farther charge and desire that no monument be made for me, but at the utmost a plain stone, with this superscription only, “Vermis Sum”’ (Wills from Doctors Commons, Camden Society, 1863, p. 111). Lenthall was buried ‘in a little aisle on the north side of Burford Church.’ ‘As yet,’ wrote Wood in 1691, ‘he hath no monument, nor so much as a stone over his grave’ (Athenæ Oxonienses, iii. 608).

A portrait of Lenthall in his robes as speaker is in the National Portrait Gallery. A number of engraved portraits are contained in the illustrated copy of Clarendon, known as the Sutherland Clarendon, in the Bodleian Library.

Lenthall was capable of behaving with dignity and courage in critical moments, and so long as deportment was sufficient he made an excellent speaker. But when circumstances thrust on him the part of a statesman, he had not sufficient strength of character to sustain it with credit. Contemporaries regarded him as a mere time-server. ‘He minded mostly the heaping up of riches,’ writes Wood, ‘and was so besotted in raising and settling a family that he minded not the least good that might accrue to his Prince.’ Rumour, however, greatly exaggerated Lenthall's gains as speaker (Old Parliamentary History, xxiii. 370; Somers Tracts, vii. 103). He is said to have added to them by receiving bribes for his parliamentary influence, and Lady Verney gave 50l. to his sister-in-law in hope of obtaining his support to a petition (, Great Civil War, iii. 317). Sir John Lenthall, the corrupt and extortionate keeper of the King's Bench prison, was reputed to have too great power with his brother (, England's Birthright, 1645, p. 28; but see Commons' Journals, iv. 274). The evidence is scarcely sufficiently conclusive to prove that the speaker himself was corrupt.

Lenthall married Elizabeth, daughter of Ambrose Evans of Loddington, Northamptonshire, who died in April 1662 (, Visitations of Oxfordshire, p. 318). His only son, (1625–1681), matriculated at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 12 Sept. 1640, entered Lincoln's Inn the same year, and was elected member for Gloucester in 1645 (, Alumni Oxonienses, iii. 902). He was knighted by Cromwell on 9 March 1657–8, and by Charles II 13 March 1677 (, Pedigrees of Knights, p. 324; Mercurius Politicus, 4–11 March 1657). On 18 Jan. 1659–60, he was made colonel of a regiment of foot and governor of Windsor (Commons' Journals, vii. 814). Lenthall was returned to the Convention parliament for Abingdon,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/66

Rh but expelled from the house on 12 May 1660 (ib. viii. 24). In 1672 he was high sheriff of Oxfordshire, and died at Besselsleigh on 9 Nov. 1681. Wood terms him ‘the grand braggadocio and liar of the age he lived in’ (Athenæ, iii. 902).

 LENTON, FRANCIS (fl. 1630–1640), court poet and anagrammatist, was probably related to the Lentons of Notley Abbey in Buckinghamshire (see, i. 233; , Fasti, ii. 4). He is said to have studied at Lincoln's Inn (though his name is not in Foster's manuscript register of admissions), and was a frequenter of the Fleece Tavern in Covent Garden, where his name furnished Sir Aston Cokayne [q. v.], Sir Andrew Knyveton, Tom Lightwood, and other habitués with materials for silly anagrams (Haslewood's manuscript notes in, Poetical Register, 1720). In an epigram (No. 54) ‘On Mr. Francis Lenton refusing wine,’ Cokayne, to emphasise the disgrace of such a proceeding, observes that ‘Franke’ was the ‘Queenes Poet, and a man of name’ (Small Poems, 1658, p. 163). The title of ‘queen's poet’ was an honorary distinction, to which in all probability neither duties nor salary were attached, although Sir William D'Avenant once held it, and Samuel Daniel is said formerly to have been an unsuccessful competitor for the post. Lenton claims the distinction on the title-pages of most of his works. The first of these was entitled ‘The Young Gallants Whirligigg, or Youth's Reakes. Demonstrating the inordinate affections, absurd actions, and profuse expenses of unbridled and affectated youth, with their extravagant courses and preposterous progressions and aversions, together with the too often deare bought experience and the rare or too late regression and reclamation of most of them from their habitual ill customs and unqualified manners,’ London, 1629. The author here gives a realistic portrayal of the progress of a rake, who begins by neglecting ‘Littleton’ for ‘Don Quix Zott,’ and ‘Coke's Reports’ for ‘fencing, dancing, and some other sports,’ and ends by experiencing ‘Misery,’ the true ‘salve to cure a haughty mind.’ ‘It appears,’ says Brydges, ‘to be faithfully touched,’ which may atone for the feebleness of the verse. In 1631 appeared his next printed work, ‘Characterismi, or Lenton's Leasures. Expressed in Essayes and Characters, never before written on. London, for Roger Michell.’ Dedicated to Oliver, lord St. John, baron of Bletsoe (Cat. of Malone's Books in Bodleian, p. 22). There are several reprints of this work with slightly altered titles. A second edition, under the title ‘Characters, or Wit and the World in their proper colours presented to the Queen's most Excellent Majestie,’ appeared in 1663 (Brit. Mus.) A few of the characters, such as ‘the Prodigall,’ ‘an Innes a Court gentleman,’ and ‘a gentleman usher,’ of which Lenton may be supposed to have had the most intimate experience, approach in excellence those of Overbury. Three years later appeared ‘The Innes of Court Anagrammatist, or the Masquers masqued in Epigrammes. Composed by Francis Lenton, gent., one of her Majestie's Poets. London for William Lashe.’ This is of special interest, since it indicates the names of those who took part in Shirley's masque the ‘Triumph of Peace’ as played before the king and queen at Whitehall in 1634. It is dedicated to the ‘Fovre Honourable Societies and famous Nurseries of Law, The Innes of Covrt,’ and is prefaced by commendatory verses by John Coysh (, p. 174). His next work was ‘Great Britains Beauties, or the Female Glory; epitomised in Encomiastick Anagramms and Acrostickes, upon the highly honoured names of the Queenes Most Gracious Majestie and the gallant Lady Masquers in her Grace's glorious Grand-Masque. Presented at White-Hall on Shrove Tuesday at Night, by the Queene's Majestie and her ladies. Framed and formed by the humble pen of F. L., the Queene's Poet. London, for James Becket,’ 1638, 4to (, Handbook, p. 333).

Besides these books, all of which are very rare, though their scarcity has been exaggerated, Lenton left in manuscript ‘Queen Ester's Haliluiahs and Haman's Madrigalls, expressed and illustrated in a Sacred Poeme; with the translation of the 83rd Psalm, wherein David curseth the Enemyes of the true Church. Composed by Fra. Lenton, gent., the Queene's Poet,’ 1637, 4to. Dedicated to Sir Anthony and Lady Cage, and probably in Lenton's autograph (Huth Libr. Cat. iii. 836). Two manuscripts, similar in most respects to that in the Huth Library (one containing the autograph of Ralph Thoresby, the antiquary), were sold among the Corser collection. Two others, slightly variant, are described in Hazlitt's ‘Collections’ (1867–


text:
Page:The Religion of Ancient Egypt.djvu/197

 serpent Sata, the bird called Bennu (which has generally, but, I think, upon insufficient grounds, been thought to have given rise to the story of the Phœnix), the crocodile Sebek, the god Ptah, a golden hawk, the chief of the principal gods, a soul, a lotus-flower and a heron. Brugsch has found a monument according to which these transformations correspond to the twelve successive hours of the day. There is, however, no evidence as to the date at which such a correspondence was first imagined, or of the general recognition of this correspondence. And the transformations to which these chapters refer are far from exhausting the list of possible ones. No limit whatever is imposed on the will of the departed.

The subject has often been misunderstood through a confusion between Egyptian notions and either Pythagorean or Hindu notions. The Pythagoreans held the notion of the metempsychosis, and the legendary history of their founder represented him as having travelled in the East, and as having been initiated by Egyptian priests into their mysteries. The Pythagorean doctrines about the destinies of the human soul have, in consequence of this unauthenticated history,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/67

Rh 1876), p. 255. There is also a small manuscript collection of poems by Lenton in the Duke of Buccleuch's Library at Dalkeith. First comes a dedicatory address to Edward, lord Montagu, baron of Boughton. Then follow poems on ‘Christmas Day,’ ‘St. Stephen's Day,’ the ‘Infant's Murther,’ and finally ‘Upon your Honour's Blessings.’ The collection, which is bound up with a ‘Treatise on Gunnery’ and ‘A Boke of the Office of the Ordynance for a Feilde or Campe,’ has little poetical merit (note communicated by A. H. Bullen, esq.) Lenton's last production was ‘The Muses Obligation, expressed in Anagrammes, Acrosticks, and an Encomiastick Gratulation reflecting on the Name, Honor, and Dignity newly confered by King Charles his fauor. On the Honourable, Nobly Mynded, Affable, and Ingenuous Sr James Stonehouse, Knight and Baronett,’ 1641, 4to. The original manuscript of this work, which was never printed, was sold at Sotheby's 4 June 1884, No. 155 (, Collections and Notes, 3rd ser. p. 140). Rimbault supposed that the poet was identical with a ‘Francis Lenton of Lincoln's Inn, Gent.,’ who died on 12 May 1642 (obituary manuscript at Stanton Hall, Leicestershire), but it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile this date with the fact that some verses signed Fra. Lenton and addressed to Richard Lovelace, ‘on his exquisite Poems,’ are prefixed to the first edition of ‘Lucasta’ (1649).

Oldys speaks of Lenton and his works with familiar contempt, and his estimate is rather confirmed by the imbecility of many of the ‘anagrams.’ Brydges, however, takes a more lenient view of his ‘ingenious particularities.’

LENTON, JOHN (fl. 1682–1718), musician, was sworn gentleman of the Chapel Royal extraordinary on 10 Nov. 1685. He played the violin and flute, and was a member of the royal band from 1692 to 1718 (Angliæ Notitia).

Lenton wrote: 1. The music to ‘Venice Preserved,’ 1682, some manuscript parts of which are in the library of the Royal College of Music. 2. Songs in D'Urfey's third collection, 1685. 3. Catches in ‘Apollo's Banquet,’ pt. i., 1693. 4. ‘The Gentleman's Diversion, or the Violin Explained,’ 1694. 5. (In conjunction with Thomas Tollet) ‘A Consort of Music in Three Parts,’ 1694. This is probably the work described by Walther as instrumental trios by Lenton or Lenthon, published in Holland. 6. Airs in the tragedy ‘The Ambitious Stepmother,’ published by Walsh in 1701. 7. ‘The Useful Instructor for the Violin,’ being a second edition of ‘The Gentleman's Diversion,’ with an appendix and the airs omitted, 1702. Overture and act tunes to the following plays: 8. ‘Tamerlane,’ 1702; 9. ‘Fair Penitent,’ 1703; 10. ‘Liberty Asserted,’ 1704; 11. ‘Abra Muley,’ 1704 (library of the Royal College). 12. Additions and corrections to Playford's ‘Wit and Mirth,’ 1709. 13. Catches in ‘Pleasant Musical Companion,’ 1720. 14. Trio, ‘Awake, fair Venus’ (Egerton MS. 2013).

LEOFRIC (Lat. ), (d. 1057), was son of Leofwine, ealdorman of the Hwiccas (Worcestershire), and brother of Northman, slain by Cnut's orders in 1017. His father, probably after the death of Eadric or Edric Streona [q. v.] in 1017, became earl of Mercia. Leofric witnesses charters as ‘minister’ or thegn, perhaps from 1005 (, Codex, No. 714), or earlier, to 1026, in which year he is also described as ‘dux’ (ib. Nos. 742, 743), though the charter is probably spurious (Norman Conquest, i. 461 n.) Florence (an. 1017) says that on Northman's death Cnut made Leofric earl in his stead, and that he always regarded him with affection. In the face of the later descriptions of Leofric as thegn, the first statement is hard to accept, and it has been suggested that the passage contains a confusion between Leofric and his father Leofwine (ib. u.s.) Leofric may have received some government, perhaps that of Chester, before held by Northman, and he certainly had a grant from Cnut of Hampton, Worcestershire, formerly granted by Ethelred to Northman (comp., Nos. 662 and 938). By 1032 Leofric was an earl, and as Leofwine does not appear as a witness to charters after 1024, it may fairly be assumed that at some date between 1024 and 1032 Leofric succeeded his father in the earldom of Mercia, which was at that time of less extent than the ancient kingdom, for portions had been cut off to form inferior earldoms, and though Leofric's superiority was no doubt recognised by other earls, his immediate rule probably did not for many years after he had received his father's earl-


text:
Page:The Religion of Ancient Egypt.djvu/198

 been transferred to the Egyptians, even by scholars who might have known better. There is really no connection, either doctrinally or historically, between the two systems. Nothing in the Pythagorean system is foreign to previously existing Hellenic modes of thought, or which requires in any way to be accounted for by foreign influence, and its metempsychosis is essentially based upon the notions of expiation and purification. Men were supposed to be punished in various forms of a renewed life upon earth, for sins committed in a previous state of existence. There is not a trace of any such conception to be found in any Egyptian text which has yet been brought to light. The only transformations after death depend, we are expressly told, simply on the pleasure of the deceased or of his "genius."

Nor is there any trace to be found of the notion of an intermediate state of purification between death and final bliss. Certain operations have to be performed, certain regions have to be traversed, certain prayers to be recited, but there is no indication of anything of an expiatorial nature. If the judgment in the Hall of Law is favourable, the departed comes forth triumphantly as a god whom nothing can harm; he is identified with Osiris and with every other divinity. The nether world, and indeed the universe at large, is full of terrible and hostile forces; but through his identification with the great gods and his uttering words of power


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/68

Rh dom extend beyond Cheshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire, and the North Welsh border (Norman Conquest, ii. 557–61;, Conquest of England, p. 498). Yet he was possessed of immense power in middle England, and ranked with Godwine and Siward as one of the three great earls among whom the government of the kingdom was divided. Chester was the head of his earldom, and no doubt the place where he chiefly resided, and he was therefore sometimes described as Earl of Chester (, No. 939).

The rise to power of Godwine and his house was evidently grievous to Leofric, and this feeling must have deepened as governments were heaped on members of Godwine's family until they hemmed the Mercian earl in on every side except the north. While, however, he was constantly opposed to Godwine, he always deprecated violent measures, and played the part of a mediator, ‘which was dictated to him by the geographical position of his earldom’ (Norman Conquest, ii. 49). On the death of Cnut, in 1035, he upheld the claim of Harold at a meeting of the witan at Oxford, and was the means of bringing the dispute to an end by his proposal, which was adopted in spite of Godwine's opposition, that the kingdom should be divided [see under and ]. In 1041 Harthacnute sent him with Godwine, Siward, and other great men to punish the people of Worcester and the neighbourhood for a revolt [see under ]. On the accession of Edward the Confessor [q. v.] he was again employed in conjunction with the two other great earls, being ordered to despoil the king's mother, Emma [q. v.], of her treasure. In 1047, and perhaps again in 1048, he successfully opposed in the witenagemot Godwine's proposal that help should be sent to Swend of Denmark. It is probable that he profited by the decline of Godwine's influence at court, and that the death of Beorn [q. v.], in 1049, led to a large increase in his power; for it must have been at that time that Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, and perhaps some other districts over which Beorn had been earl were reunited to the Mercian earldom (ib. p. 561). In 1051 Leofric received a summons from the king to come to his help; for Godwine and his sons had taken up arms. He marched with a small force to Gloucester, where Edward was, but when he and the other earls who were on the king's side saw how matters stood, they sent messengers through their earldoms to raise all their forces. War seemed imminent, when Leofric interposed, declaring that it would be folly for Englishmen to fight with one another, and so lay their land open to the attack of a foreign enemy; for the chiefest men in the country were in the two armies. He advised, therefore, that both sides should give hostages, and should keep the peace, and that the quarrel should be decided at a future meeting of the witan. His advice was followed. That the banishment of Godwine and his sons implied an increase of Leofric's power is evident from the grant of Harold's earldom of East Anglia to Leofric's son Ælfgar [q. v.] When, on the return of Godwine, the foreign officials were expelled, two Normans, Osbern, the son of Richard, builder of Richard's castle, Herefordshire, and his ally, Hugh, surrendered to Leofric, as probably the superior of Ralph, earl of the Magesætas, and Leofric granted them a guard to take them safe to Scotland. If, as is supposed, Odda held the earldom of the Hwiccas, he was also no doubt more or less subordinate to Leofric (comp. , Nos. 766 and 805), and by one means or another the Mercian earldom had by this time been greatly extended (Conquest of England, p. 536). The assertion which, according to William of Poitiers (p. 130), was made by Duke William, that Leofric, with the two other great earls, advised Edward to declare the duke heir to the throne in a meeting of the witan, and confirmed the decree by oath, is certainly untrue (Norman Conquest, iii. 678–681). The predominance of Earl Harold [see ] in the affairs of state after 1053 must have been galling to Leofric, and was resented by Ælfgar. Leofric evidently remained loyal during his son's revolt, and in 1056 joined Harold in making peace between the king and Gruffyd. He died in his house at Bromley, Staffordshire, on 31 Aug. 1057, at a good old age, and was buried in the minster, which he and his wife had built, at Coventry. By his wife Godgifu—the Godiva [q. v.] of legend—he had, as far as is known, only one son, Ælfgar, the notion that Hereward [q. v.] was his son being erroneous. Leofric was temperate in counsel, patriotic, and religious (his reputation for piety is illustrated in the legendary life of the Confessor, Lives of Edward the Confessor, p. 401); he was bountiful to ecclesiastical foundations, and in common with his wife appears ‘to have taken a special interest in the buildings and ornaments of the houses which he favoured’ (Norman Conquest, ii. 48). His character alone is sufficient to prove the absurdity of the part assigned to him in the legend of which his wife is made the heroine. At Coventry he and his wife built the church and monastery


text:
Page:The Religion of Ancient Egypt.djvu/199

 in their name, he passes unhurt in any direction that he pleases.

Identification with Osiris and other Gods.

3. The identification of the departed with Osiris is first found explicitly asserted on the wooden coffin (now in the British Museum) of king Menkaurā of the third pyramid. The inscription, which, with different names and other variations, occurs on a good many coffins, is as follows: "Osiris, king Men-kau-Rā, living eternally, born of Heaven, issue of the goddess Nut, heir of Seb! She stretches herself out, thy mother Nut, above thee in her name of Heavenly Mystery. She hath granted that thou shouldest become a god without an opponent, king Men-kau-Rā, living eternally!"

On two royal coffins of the eleventh dynasty, the goddesses Isis and Nephthys are quoted as addressing their brother Osiris.

The rituals of this early period do not actually insert the name of Osiris before the name of the departed, but all later rituals do so, except in the more recent periods, when women were called Hathor instead of Osiris. And throughout the Book of the Dead in the earliest forms known to us, the identification with Osiris or assimilation to him is taken for granted, and


text:
Page:The Religion of Ancient Egypt.djvu/200

Rh all the deities of the family of Osiris, or whose acts have relation to Osiris, are supposed to perform for the deceased whatever the legend records as having been done for Osiris.

Thus in the eighteenth chapter (which, if we may judge from the innumerable copies of it, must have been considered one of the most important of all) the deceased is brought before a series of divinities in succession, the gods of Heliopolis, Abydos, Tattu and other localities, and at each station the litany begins: "O Tehuti, who causest Osiris to triumph against his opponents, cause the Osiris (such a one) to triumph against his opponents, even as thou hast made Osiris to triumph against his opponents." He then repeats the names of the divinities of the place, generally in conjunction with some allusion to the legendary history of Osiris. In the next chapter, which is another recension of the eighteenth, and is entitled the "Crown of Triumph," the deceased is declared triumphant for ever and ever, and all the gods in heaven and earth repeat this "in presence of Osiris, presiding in Amenti, Unnefer, the son of Nut, on the day that he triumphed over Set and his associates, before the great gods of Heliopolis on the night of the battle in which the rebels were overthrown, before the great gods of Abydos on the night wherein Osiris triumphed over his opponents, before the great gods of the western horizon on the day of the festival of 'Come thou to me.'" It


text:
Page:The Religion of Ancient Egypt.djvu/201

 ends: "Horus has repeated this declaration four times, and all his enemies fall prostrate before him annihilated. Horus, the son of Isis, repeats it millions of times, and all his enemies fall annihilated. They are carried off to the place of execution in the East; their heads are cut off, their necks are broken, their thighs are severed, and delivered up to the great destroyer who dwells in Aati; they shall not come forth from the custody of Seb for ever."

The term maā-χeru is always added to the name of the faithful departed, and used to be translated "the justified." The sense of "véridique," truthful of speech, veracious, has been defended by some French scholars; but the real sense is "triumphant;" literally, "one whose word is law," not merely truth.

But, as I have said, it is not only to Osiris that the deceased is assimilated. In the forty-second chapter every limb is assimilated to a different deity: the hair to Nu, the face to Rā, the eyes to Hathor, the ears to Apuat, the nose to the god of Sechem, the lips to Anubis, the teeth to Selket, and so on, the catalogue ending with the words, "There is not a limb in him without a god, and Tehuti is a safeguard to all his members." Later on, it is said, "Not men, nor gods, nor the ghosts of


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/69

Rh dedicated to St. Mary, richly endowed it, gave it many valuable gifts, and procured that it should be exempt from episcopal control (Monasticon, iii. 177, 191;, No. 939; Gesta Regum, c. 341); at Chester they repaired St. Werburgh's (Monasticon, ii. 370; , an. 1057); Evesham received a grant of Hampton (Monasticon, ii. 18; , No. 938); at Wenlock they rebuilt the church founded by St. Milburg (Monasticon, v. 72; and Gesta Regum, u.s.); and Worcester, Stow in Lindesey, and Leominster they enriched with gifts (Monasticon, i. 600; , No. 766;  and Gesta Regum, u.s.)

 LEOFRIC (Lat. ) (d. 1072), first bishop of Exeter, probably, as may be gathered from his name, an Englishman by descent, though, as he is called ‘British’ (, an. 1046), perhaps a native of Cornwall, was brought up and received his learning in Lotharingia. He became one of the clerks or chaplains of Edward the Confessor [q. v.], and was the first to be designated as chancellor (ib.) On the death of Bishop Living or Lyfing [q. v.], in 1046, he was appointed to succeed him in the united dioceses of Devonshire and Cornwall, the seat of the bishopric being at Crediton. Finding his diocese in a backward state, for it had often been plundered by pirates, he visited it diligently, preached to the people, instructed the clergy, and built several churches. His life was decorous, and he was zealous in the discharge of all his duties. His foreign education gave him the ideas of a continental churchman, and made him an ecclesiastical reformer. He was dissatisfied at having his see placed in a village like Crediton, and wished to have it removed to Exeter. At Crediton his church was liable to be attacked by pirates; at Exeter there were fortifications. Accordingly, he sent his chaplain, Lanbert, to Pope Leo IX with a letter, begging leave to move his see, and asking the pope to request Edward to sanction the change. Leo wrote to the king expressing his surprise that the English bishops should not have each his see placed in a city, and, deferring the general question, directed him to carry out Leofric's wish. Edward obeyed, went to Exeter in 1050, and, in the presence of the earls and great men of the kingdom, the king took the bishop by the right arm, and the queen [see or, d. 1075] taking him by the left arm, they joined in installing him in his new episcopal seat in the minster of St. Peter at Exeter. Leofric expelled the monks (, Gesta Pontificum, p. 200, writes nuns, but this is evidently a mistake) from the church, and put canons in their place. These new canons, however, were not to live like the English canons; he placed them under the rule of Chrodegang of Metz (for this rule see, De Inventione Crucis, Pref. pp. ix sqq.), which had been familiar to him in Lotharingia, compelling them to use a common dormitory and a common table. He found his new church miserably poor, despoiled of nearly all its lands, its books, and its ornaments. For some time he supported the canons out of his own means while he was recovering the lands of which the church had been robbed. Among these was Topsham, which Harold [see ] unjustly took away, and which the bishop was not able to recover. He also bestowed other lands on the church, chiefly within the diocese, together with Bampton in Oxfordshire. Certain of these lands he appropriated to the support of the canons, and his grant was confirmed by a charter from the Conqueror in 1068. He also gave many vestments and ornaments to the church, and a library of nearly sixty volumes, twenty-eight of them being in English. One of these, ‘a great English book of divers things, written in verse,’ may be identified with the collection of poetry known as the ‘Liber Exoniensis.’ The original manuscript is still preserved in the library of the dean and chapter of Exeter, and there is a facsimile copy in the British Museum. From this work Thorpe took his ‘Codex Exoniensis,’ published by the Society of Antiquaries in 1842. ‘Leofric's Missal,’ which he gave to his church, is in the Bodleian Library, MS. 579. It contains, besides liturgical matter, records of manumissions and an account of the translation of the see. Leofric died on 10 Feb. 1072, and was buried in the crypt of his church, probably under St. James's Chapel, the vestry of the priests-vicars, to the south of the choir. The fabric roll contains an entry under 1419 for an inscription to him (ib.), and in 1568 a monument was erected to him in the south tower, which was believed to stand upon the place of his burial.


text:
Page:Biographies of Scientific Men.djvu/45

Rh birds and quadrupeds. His scientific studies were encouraged by one of the professors of the Academy giving him a copy of Linnæus' Systema Naturæ. At this time he was studying philosophy and political economy, natural history, and the German language.

During a period of great anxiety and unrest (namely, in 1788), and at the age of nineteen, Cuvier became private tutor in the family of the Comte d'Héricy, whose estate was near Caen in Normandy. In this position he remained for six years—all through the Great Revolution; in the last year of his tutorship he heard of the execution of Lavoisier (1794), and during the same year his country was at war. The French conquered Flanders, overran the Palatinate, and took Treves; they also took Coblenz, Maëstricht, and Venlo, and nearly the whole frontiers of Holland, and many places in Spain. At the same time the French were defeated by the English in various sea-fights, and lost nearly all their West Indian islands. During this period of storm and unrest Cuvier was working quietly on his favourite subject. In the nobleman's family, besides learning the manners and etiquette of refined society, he was studying with great zeal natural history, comparing fossil forms with living species, dissecting molluscs, classifying animals, etc. It was at this period that he conceived the idea of his two great works, the Ossemens Fossiles and the Règne Animal—and he placed classification on an anatomical


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/70

Rh   LEOFRIC (fl. 1100) is said to have written a life of Hereward [q. v.] in English. The sole authority for this statement is the anonymous writer of the ‘Gesta Herewardi,’ whose work is a tissue of legends and romances constructed in order to magnify the name of his hero. It is found on f. cccxx. sqq. of the ‘Cartulary of Peterborough Abbey,’ which now belongs to Peterborough Cathedral Library, and was compiled in the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth centuries. The writer of the ‘Gesta’ states that he gathered facts from men who were living in Hereward's time, and if this were so he must have lived in the first half of the twelfth century. The English work of Leofric the deacon, Hereward's chaplain (presbyter) at Bourne (Brun), was his chief source, and he says Leofric was fond of collecting for the edification of his hearers all the acts of giants and warriors out of the fables of the ancients, or from faithful report, and of committing these to writing. Leofric was one of Hereward's chosen followers, and, although a monk, he was skilled in arms. He is praised for his astuteness in carrying out a plan for the release of Hereward when on his way from Bedford to Rockingham in the custody of Robert de Horepol.

The account of Hereward's career given in the ‘Gesta’ resembles rather that of the pseudo-Ingulph than that of the ‘Liber Eliensis’ (cf., Norm. Conq. iv. 455, and note O O).

 LEOFWINE (d. 1066), a younger and probably the fifth son of Earl Godwine [q. v.] and his wife, Gytha, is described as ‘nobilis’ in 1049 (, Codex Dipl. iv. No. 787), and about that date, or perhaps earlier, acted as governor of Kent (ib. No. 828, dated by the death of Archbishop Eadsige in 1050, and according to Norman Conquest, ii. 567, by the death of Godwine, bishop of Rochester, in 1046, but the latter date seems uncertain). Leofwine was not, however, earl, and no doubt acted as governor under his father's direction; for he must then have been quite a youth. On the outlawry of his family in 1051, he fled with his brother Harold [see ] to Ireland, took part in Harold's raid on Somerset in the next year, and shared in his father's restoration. In 1057, the date of a rearrangement of earldoms, he probably became earl of the whole country over which it is certain that he afterwards ruled. His government extended over Kent, Surrey, Essex, Middlesex (with the exception of London and so much as pertained to it), Hertfordshire, and probably Buckinghamshire (, Codex Dipl. iv. Nos. 846, 858, 860, 864), though the administration seems to some extent to have been under the control of Harold (ib. Nos. 854, 855, 859). He appears to have accompanied Harold, then king, to the battle of Stamford Bridge (Norman Conquest, iii. 361 n.) At the battle of Hastings, on 14 Oct. 1066, he took his place beside the king under the standard, and fell fighting at the barricade in front of the English position almost at the same moment at which his brother Gyrth [q. v.] was slain. His death is represented in the Bayeux tapestry.

 LEOMINSTER, (d. 1711), connoisseur. [See .]

LEONI, GIACOMO (1686–1746), architect, was a Venetian, and held the post of architect to the elector palatine. He settled in England at the beginning of the eighteenth century, having probably been brought over by Richard Boyle, earl of Burlington, to assist in the publication of Palladio's ‘Architecture’ in English. The plates for the work were prepared afresh by Leoni. The book was published, London, 1715, 1721, 1725; the Hague, 1726 (in French); London, 1742. Leoni translated into English Alberti's ‘De re Ædificatoria,’ and published it with C. Bartoli's Italian translation, and plates of his own designs. It appeared as ‘The Architecture of Leon Battista Alberti,’ &c., in London in 1726, 1739, 1751, 1755 (the last edition is in English only). The books on painting and


text:
Page:Biographies of Scientific Men.djvu/46

20 basis, which was a great stride upon the work of his predecessors. Lamarck arranged the various groups of animals in linear order from lower to higher—a scala naturæ; Cuvier opposed this system, and established the idea of diverging branches (embranchements), although, unlike Lamarck, he was no evolutionist.

While at the Normandy town, with its beautiful cathedral of St Pierre, Cuvier made the acquaintance of the old Abbé Tessier, then hiding from the fury of Robespierre and other revolutionists. Disguised as a surgeon, the learned old man discovered the worth of young Cuvier, and this introduction was the means of putting the latter into communication with Jussieu, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Daubenton, Lapécède, and other men of science.

In 1795 Cuvier was appointed an assistant to the professor of anatomy in the Musée d'Histoire Naturelle. The same year saw him established as professor at the École Centrale du Panthéon—and here he composed his Tableau élémentaire de l'Histoire Naturelle des Animaux—the basis of the modern system of classification of the animal kingdom. At this time Mertrud, aided by the brothers Cuvier, commenced the famous and extensive collection of comparative anatomy at the Jardin des Plantes, Paris; and the next year Cuvier was elected a member of the Académie des Sciences.

In 1796 he discovered red blood in leeches (Hirudo),


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/71

Rh statuary were separately published (English and Italian) in 1741, with many of the plates drawn by Leoni. His first work was Bramham Park, near Leeds in Yorkshire, built for Lord Bingley, 1710, partly destroyed by fire in 1865. Moor Park, Hertfordshire, 1720, Leoni's greatest work, was built at great expense, on the site of the original brick mansion by Wren, for B. H. Styles, esq.; the wings with the chapel were taken down between 1789 and 1799. In 1721 he designed Queensberry House in Old Burlington Street for the Duke of Queensberry and Dover (rebuilt in 1790–2); in 1725 Latham House, Lancashire, for Sir Thomas Booth; in 1723–1732 the south front of Lyme Hall, Cheshire, for Peter Legh, esq., with alterations in the existing building; in 1730 Bold Hall, Lancashire, for Peter Bold, esq.; in 1732 Clandon Park, Surrey, for the Earl of Onslow; in 1740 Burton or Bodecton Park, Sussex, for R. Biddulph, esq.; and Moulsham Park, Essex, for Benjamin, earl Fitz-Walter, which was demolished about 1810. Leoni died 8 June 1746, aged 60, and was buried in Old St. Pancras churchyard. He left a widow, Mary, and two sons, John Philip and Joseph. He made no will, and appears to have died in poor circumstances.

 LEOPOLD GEORGE DUNCAN ALBERT, (1853–1884), fourth and youngest son of Queen Victoria and the prince consort, was born at Buckingham Palace on 7 April 1853. So delicate was his health that his baptism was deferred until the ensuing 28 June (Coronation day), when the rite was performed at Buckingham Palace, his sponsors being George V, king of Hanover (after whom he was named George), Prince Ernest of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, Augusta, princess of Prussia (afterwards German Empress), and Princess Mary of Cambridge, afterwards Duchess of Teck. The prince was named Leopold after his great-uncle, Leopold II, king of the Belgians, Albert after his father, and Duncan in compliment to Scotland. His ill-health debarred him from the ordinary sports of boyhood, and even precluded a systematic course of education. His mind, however, was active, he early evinced a love of books—Shakespeare and Sir Walter Scott were his favourite authors—and he showed remarkable aptitude for music and modern languages. He was instructed in the rudiments of religion and science by Canon Duckworth, Dean Stanley, and Professor Tyndall. Later on his principal tutor was Mr. (later Sir) Robert Hawthorn Collins, afterwards comptroller of his household, with whom he went into residence at Oxford in 1872, matriculating at Christ Church (27 Nov.) He lived at Wykeham House, St. Giles's, near the parks; attended, in the garb of a gentleman-commoner, the lectures of the professors of history, poetry, music, fine art, and political economy, and studied science at the museum and modern languages at the Taylorian Institution.

On coming of age in 1874 the prince was sworn of the privy council, and granted an annuity of 15,000l. In the winter of 1874–5 his life was threatened by a severe attack of typhus fever. In 1876 he left the university with the honorary degree of D.C.L., and established himself at Boyton House, Wiltshire, whence he removed in 1879 to Claremont. Part of the intervening years he spent in travel in France, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, and in 1880 he made a tour in Canada and the United States. In 1878 he was elected president of the Royal Society of Literature, and in 1879 vice-president of the Society of Arts. He was a graceful and effective public speaker, and took a lively interest in social questions. In 1879 he spoke in favour of the movement for university extension (Mansion House, 19 Feb.), advocated the cause of technical education in presiding at the prize distribution at the Birkbeck Institute, Chancery Lane (25 Feb.), took the chair and spoke at a meeting at Grosvenor House in support of the Royal Institution in aid of the Deaf and Dumb (16 May), and opened Firth College, Sheffield (20 Oct.). In 1880 he laid the foundation-stone of the Oxford High School (14 April). In 1881 he presided at the first meeting of the Kyrle Society (27 Jan.), opened University College, Nottingham (30 June), advocated the establishment of a national conservatoire of music at a soirée at Manchester (12 Dec.), and laid the foundation-stone of the Princess Helena College at Ealing (17 Dec.)


text:
Page:Biographies of Scientific Men.djvu/47

Rh and the following year appeared his paper on the nutrition of insects.

In 1799 he succeeded Daubenton (the collaborator of Buffon) in the chair of natural history at the Collège de France; and finally succeeded Mertrud in the chair of comparative anatomy at the Jardin des Plantes.

In 1800 he published his first palæontological paper, Mémoires sur les Espèces d'Eléphants vivants et fossils, and the quantity and quality of the palæontological work which he turned out is simply astounding.

After the publication of his great work, Leçons d'Anatomie Comparée, in 1802, Napoleon (then First Consul) appointed Cuvier one of the inspectors-general for establishing lycées in thirty towns. At the same time he was elected Secrétaire perpétuel de l'Académie des Sciences (l'Institut de France), and was consequently brought into contact with all the celebrated men of science in the French capital.

In the same year (1804) that saw Napoleon created Emperor and crowned by Pope Pius VII., Cuvier married a widow—Madame Duvaucel (whose husband was a fermier général, and along with Lavoisier and others suffered death by decapitation). His marriage was a happy one.

From 1809 to 1813 Cuvier was sent on an important educational mission to Holland, Italy, and Germany;


text:
Page:Biographies of Scientific Men.djvu/48

22 and during his sojourn in those countries, Napoleon (then master of Europe) dethroned the Pope, annexed Rome, made Bernadotte King of Sweden, incorporated Holland with France, divorced Josephine and married Maria Louisa of Austria, declared war against Russia, retreated from Moscow, but still alert and intrepid. Such were the times in which Cuvier did work of the highest importance. He was made Chevalier de la Légion d'Honneur in 1811, and three years later a Councillor of State, and in 1812 appeared his monumental work, Recherches sur les Ossemens Fossiles.

During the nine years' reign of Louis XVIII. he was Chancellor of the University of Paris, and held many State appointments. In 1817 he published Règne Animal distribué d'après son Organisation, a work which had the greatest influence upon naturalists, and his system became of world-wide fame.

Cuvier visited London in 1818, and was delighted with the liberties enjoyed by the people in this country, and more than once he alluded to it in his writings. During his sojourn in England Cuvier was made an "immortal"—as a member of the Académie Française is designated. In 1819 he was created a baron.

On the death of Louis XVIII., his brother Charles, the Comte d'Artois, ascended the throne as Charles X., and Cuvier took part in the coronation of that monarch, on which occasion he was promoted in the Order of the


text:
Page:Biographies of Scientific Men.djvu/49

Rh Légion d'Honneur, was created a Commander of the Order of the Crown of Würtemberg, and received other distinctions.

Three years after the succession of Charles X., Cuvier refused the odious office of press censor, but accepted the position of administrator of the non-catholic religions in France.

Cuvier formed a most extensive library, and permitted naturalists of all nations to work in it. The spirit of jealousy was entirely foreign to his nature. He rejoiced in the discoveries and work of others. "The man who has made a permanent addition to our knowledge of facts has rendered an imperishable service to science," said Cuvier. After his death his library was purchased by the French Government, and it now belongs to the Jardin des Plantes; and the vestibule of the library of St Geneviève contains a fine bust of Cuvier.

In 1828 Cuvier, in collaboration with Valenciennes, commenced the famous Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, which, however, was not completed until after his death.

In 1830, or the year that saw the abdication of Charles X. (the last of the Bourbon dynasty in France), la petite révolution de trois jours, and the election of Louis Philippe to the throne by the title of King of the French (not as the King of France), Cuvier was in London when the petite révolution was consummated, and remained there two weeks. In 1832 he was created


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/74

 Society of Jesus 12 Nov. 1712, and taught literature at Sora and Ancona. He passed through his theological course at the Collegio Romano, and subsequently delivered lectures on the Greek language in that institution. In 1728 he taught philosophy in the Illyrian College of Loreto. He was professed of the four vows 2 Feb. 1728–9, and being sent to the Scottish mission, laboured in Aberdeenshire. In 1734 he returned to Italy and taught in the colleges of Ancona and Tivoli. He came back to England in 1738 at the request of Lord Petre, who desired to have the services of an ecclesiastic who was versed in antiquarian lore. He was associated with the English province of the society, and in 1751 was a missioner in the ‘College of the Holy Apostles,’ which comprised Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, and Cambridgeshire. Returning to Rome in 1744 he was prefect of studies in the Scots College till 1746, was professor of moral theology for two years in the English College (1746–8), and in 1749 was associated with the learned jesuit Emanuel de Azevedo in preparing the ‘Thesaurus Liturgicus’ for publication. He fixed his residence in the Collegio Romano, where he died on 27 March 1758, after having published a mere fragment of the projected ‘Thesaurus,’ viz. ‘Missale mixtum secundum Regulam Beati Isidori dictum Mozarabes,’ with a preface, notes, and appendix, 2 vols., Rome, 1755, 4to; reprinted under the editorship of J.P. Migne, Paris, 1850, 8vo. This was a reprint of the Mozarabic Missal printed at Toledo in 1500 by order of Cardinal Ximenes. ‘Lesley's preface and notes,’ says M. Lefebre in the ‘Biographie Universelle,’ ‘are invaluable to those who desire to trace the origin of the Mozarabic rite and its variations.’ He is said to have left in manuscript:
 * 1) ‘Notes on the Mozarabic Breviary.’
 * 2) ‘Notes on a Greek Medal struck by the inhabitants of Smyrna.’
 * 3) ‘Iter Litterarium.’
 * 4) Two collections of inscriptions, viz. ‘Lapides Tiburtini’ and ‘Lapides Britannici.’
 * 5) ‘Refutation of Dr. Conyers Middleton's “Pagan and Modern Rome compared,”’ an uncompleted work.
 * 6) Notes on Father John Tempest's ‘Letters from Palestine.’
 * 7) ‘De præstantia veterum lapidum,’ in imitation of the work of Spanheim.
 * 8) ‘De præstantia numismatum.’
 * 9) ‘De Legionibus,’ an important work, in which he distinguished, by means of inscriptions, all the grades of the Roman army.

LESLEY, WILLIAM ALOYSIUS, D.D. (1641–1704), jesuit, born in Aberdeenshire in 1641, entered the Society of Jesus at Rome at the age of twenty-five, being then a doctor of divinity. For some time he taught philosophy at Perugia, and on 10 Feb. 1673–4 he was appointed superior of the Scots College at Rome, which he governed for nine years. On his petition, in conjunction with his cousin William Lesley, agent at Rome for the Scottish clergy, the festival of St. Margaret, which previously had been celebrated in Scotland only, was inserted in the Roman breviary and missal. During the last ten years of his life Lesley served the mission in Scotland, where he died on 26 March 1704.

He published ‘Vita di S. Margherita, Regina di Scozia, raccolta da diversi autori,’ Rome, 1675, 1691, and 1718, 12mo, pp. 105.

LESLIE. [See also and .]

LESLIE, ALEXANDER, first (1580?–1661), general, was born, according to Macfarlane the antiquary, at Coupar-Angus, in the house of Leonard Leslie, who was abbot there from 1563 to 1605 (manuscript in Advocates' Library, Edinburgh). His father was George Leslie, captain of the castle of Blair in Athole, a scion of the Leslies of Balquhain; his mother, whose surname was Stewart, and whose christian name is variously given as Ann and Margaret, is doubtfully said to have been a daughter of the laird of Ballechin. David, second earl of Wemyss, who was engaged in the covenanting war under Leslie, noted in his diary the current story that she was ‘a wench in Rannoch’ (manuscript preserved at Wemyss Castle). He was born out of wedlock, but after the death of his wife Captain George Leslie married his former love in order to legitimate his eldest son (, Hist. Records of the Family of Leslie, iii. 356).

Leslie is said to have been over eighty on his death in 1661 (, Memoirs, p. 25), and must have therefore been born about 1580. His education was probably scanty. Lord Hailes pointed out the print-like form of his


text:
Page:Mr. Punch's Book of Sports.djvu/64

Mr. Punch's Book of Sports

Sharp Person (asks, singing). In what hand should a cricketer write?

Dull Person (answers, also singing). I don't quite understand.

Sharp Person (annoyed). Shall I repeat—

Sharper Person (briskly sings). Oh no! I see't, He'll write in a bowl'd round hand.

 * [Exit dances off  Dull Person is left thinking.

Tommy (reading daily paper). What's a centenarian, Bill?

Bill (promptly). A cricketer, of course, who makes a hundred runs.

Tommy. You don't say so. I thought he was called a centurion.

A well-known cricketer was expecting an interesting family event. Suddenly the nurse rushed into his smoking-room. "Well, nurse?" he said, "what is it?" "Two fine byes," announced the nurse.

title: Page:Mr. Punch's Book of Sports.djvu/64


text:
Page:Biographies of Scientific Men.djvu/50

24 a peer of France, and just before his death (which occurred on 13th May 1832) was made Ministre de 1'Intérieur. Cuvier died in harness, for he was lecturing at the Collège de France only a few days before his death. He was buried in the celebrated Cimetière du Père la Chaise, and his funeral was attended by an enormous concourse of people, his death being looked upon as a national calamity.

Cuvier was of a religious nature; his lectures and speech were clear, precise, and animated, often rising to the highest eloquence; he was a brilliant writer, and an expert draughtsman. In private life he was kind and affable, a lover of order and regularity, and was accessible to all, except during hours of study. He conscientiously performed his various and manifold duties, both to the State and to science, with increasing industry. So vast were his labours that he shortened his days.

Cuvier was the first to indicate the principle upon which the classification of animals should be based—from the standpoint of comparative anatomy. He was the founder of comparative anatomy, and the discoverer of the law of the "correlation of growth," and was the first to apply this law to the reconstruction of animals from fossil fragments, and hence the student of nature might see pictures of the earliest epochs in the world's history—before the advent of man. To the older zoologist, classification was based on external resemblances,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/75

 signatures, the only extant specimens of his handwriting, as proof of his illiteracy, and relates the story that Leslie once told some attendants that his instruction in reading did not reach beyond the letter g (, Life of Milton, ii. 55, footnote).

In early manhood he sought employment as a soldier on the continent. According to Macfarlane he first served under Sir Horatio Vere in the Netherlands, probably as one of the Scottish company which, under the captaincy of Sir Walter Scott, father of the first Earl of Buccleuch, followed Vere from England before 1604. In 1605 Leslie entered the army of the king of Sweden, in which he served with distinction during the next thirty years. He fought under Charles IX of Sweden and under his son, Gustavus Adolphus, in their campaigns against Russia, Poland, and Denmark, as well as against the imperial house of Austria in the thirty years' war.

On 23 Sept. 1626, when Gustavus Adolphus was invested by envoys from Charles I with the order of the Garter at Dirschau, he knighted Leslie, then lieutenant-general, and five others, in the presence of the whole army (Rutliven Correspondence, p. ix). In the same year Leslie signalised himself in an encounter with the Polish troops of Sigismund in the neighbourhood of Danzig.

In 1628, when the Swedish king had flung himself into the thirty years' war, Leslie acted as his chief officer. In May he was sent to take the command at Stralsund, which Wallenstein was besieging. With five thousand Scots and Swedes Leslie fought his way into the town, the stores of which he replenished, and his vigorous action compelled Wallenstein to raise the siege and retire. Leslie was thereupon appointed governor of all the remaining cities along the Baltic coast. Munificent rewards were given him by the citizens of Stralsund, including a medal struck in gold to commemorate the relief of the city (, Expedition, 1637, pp. 75–8). The medal is still preserved by Leslie's descendants.

Leslie continued in command of the Baltic district until 1630, and made it a valuable recruiting-ground for the Swedish armies. The adjacent island of Rugen was meanwhile in the occupation of the imperialist troops, and satisfied that they were incapable of much injury, Leslie for a time ignored their presence. But learning in that year that Duke Bogislaus of Pomerania had privately agreed, with Wallenstein's consent, to cede the island to Denmark, he by a bold sally took possession of it in the name of the king of Sweden (, Gustavus Adolphus, 1890, pp. 85, 114, 117).

In recognition of his services Gustavus conferred upon him an estate in Sweden, which was resumed by the Swedish government in 1635 on the ground of some defect in the grant; and if it be true that he received ‘two rich earldoms in Germany’ at the same time, it is clear that the changing fortunes of war soon deprived him of them (State Papers, Dom. 1639, p. 226). A valuable jewel, another gift of Gustavus, with a miniature likeness of the donor, Leslie retained till his death (, Historical Notices of Scottish Affairs, i. 421).

In May 1630 Leslie went to England to advise James, third marquis of Hamilton [q. v.], who had been entrusted by Charles I with the duty of bringing six thousand English soldiers to Gustavus's aid. Leslie acted as sergeant-major-general to Hamilton and his troops. After Hamilton's landing at the mouth of the Oder in Pomerania, Leslie, despite the sickness and death that soon reduced the numbers of the British contingent by a third, captured with their aid the towns of Crossen, Frankfort, and Guben on the Oder. He was afterwards engaged with the British contingent at the recovery of Magdeburg from the imperialists (January 1632), and at the siege of Boxtelude he was in command of the army of Field-marshal Todt, who had fallen into temporary disgrace; but a few days after his arrival a shot from the town struck him on the instep of his left foot while he was viewing the place, and disabled him. He was carried to Hamburg (Swedish Intelligencer, pt. iv. p. 128), but recovered in time to be present at the battle of Lutzen on 6 Nov. 1632, where Gustavus was killed. Subsequently he laid siege to Brandenburg, which surrendered to him on 16 March 1634; and returning to Pomerania, again took part in the reduction of Frankfort on the Oder. Later he was made general of the Swedish armies in Westphalia, where he reduced the castle of Petershagen, took the town of Minden on the Weser, and relieved the garrison of Osnabruck. On the death of Kniphausen in the summer of 1636 he was made field-marshal in his place (, Memoirs, p. 9), and he despatched Colonel [q. v.] to Scotland in order to gain recruits, giving him letters appealing for assistance addressed to Charles I and Hamilton. At the time the position of the Swedish army in Germany was becoming critical. In the latter half of 1637 Leslie was driven from Torgau and down the Elbe to Stettin, whence he crossed to Stockholm in September. The Swedish queen and her chancellor, Oxenstierna, acknowledged the value of his exertions by granting him an annual pension of


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/76

Rh eight hundred rixdollars, while his elder son, Gustavus, was appointed a colonel in the Swedish army. He at the same time received fresh instructions for the prosecution of the war in Germany (note of Swedish documents in Melville Charter-chest; Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. pt. vi. pp. 69–93;, Earls of Haddington, ii. 91–114).

Leslie had married in early life Agnes Renton, daughter of the laird of Billy, Berwickshire, but she had remained in Scotland in his absence, and he had managed to pay her frequent visits. In 1635, when he seems to have had thoughts of retiring from military life, he spent some time in Scotland, and with the assistance of his remote kinsman and intimate friend John, earl of Rothes, acquired the estate of Balgonie and other adjacent lands in Fife, and the estate of East Nisbet in Berwickshire. On 9 July 1635 Culross in Perthshire conferred on him the civic freedom (burgess ticket in Melville Charter-chest). In 1636 his relations with Rothes were drawn closer by the marriage of his second son, Alexander, to Rothes's second daughter, Margaret. On his return to Scotland in the year following Leslie announced his intention of carrying his wife and family to Sweden, but he seems to have contemplated transferring his services to the elector palatine (cf. Ruthven Correspondence, p. xiv). In April 1638 he was presented in London to Charles I, and expressed himself ready to undertake the leadership of an expedition for the recovery of the Bohemian throne for Charles's nephew, the elector (, Hist. of England, viii. 388). He received a safe-conduct from Charles, dated 20 March 1637–8, for the safe conveyance of himself and household from Scotland across the sea on business from the king (original safe-conduct in the Melville Charter-chest). Leslie accordingly paid a very brief visit to Germany, but nothing in regard to the elector was effected.

Leslie had watched with interest the course of events in Scotland, and was in complete sympathy with the covenanters. He had not only taken the covenant himself, but caused ‘a great number of our commanders in Germany subscryve our covenant’ (, Letters, i. 111). He was generally marked out as the leader of the Scottish army in event of those hostilities with England which Charles I's ecclesiastical policy seemed to make inevitable in 1638. On 14 Aug. 1638 Christina of Sweden gave him, at his request, letters of demission, in which she testified to his achievements in the Swedish service, and his arrears of salary were paid in the shape of munitions of war—two field-pieces and two thousand muskets. With these arms he returned in November to Scotland, and had some difficulty in avoiding the English cruisers which were watching the Scottish coast.

Immediately on his arrival Leslie took the direction of the military preparations then going forward. He gathered together the most expert military officers as a council of war, saw to the levying and drilling of the recruits, sent abroad to Holland and other countries, not only for more ammunition and arms, but to impress upon any of the Scots serving abroad the duty of coming home; and he caused Captain Alexander Hamilton, who was better known by the sobriquet of ‘Dear Sandy,’ to cast a number of cannon, such as were used in field warfare on the continent, but were hitherto unknown in Britain. Leith he strongly fortified in order to resist the attack of an expected fleet under Hamilton, and he infused such a spirit into the covenanters that even the nobles and their wives put their hands to the work. Leslie fully identified himself with the cause of the covenant by appending his signature to the libel against the bishops (, Scots Affairs, i. 127).

The first active incident of the campaign was the capture of Aberdeen, which Leslie effected without a blow (State Papers, Dom. 1639, p. 39; cf., second ). In March 1639, when the covenanters resolved to seize the fortresses, Leslie was sent to demand the surrender of Edinburgh Castle. He took very few men with him, and, after the constable refused to give up the castle, made a feint of retiring. But placing a petard on the outer gate, he instantly destroyed it by the explosion, and then vigorously assailed the inner gate with axes and rams. Before the garrison recovered from their surprise, scaling-ladders were applied to the walls, and without the loss of a man on either side the castle was in Leslie's hands.

As Hamilton with his fleet now lay in the Forth, and Charles was reported nearly ready to lead an army in person into Scotland, a general muster of the Scottish levies took place at Leith, and with one consent Leslie was formally nominated lord-general of all the Scottish forces by land or sea, and also of all fortresses (9 May 1639). Plenary powers were conferred upon him, and the whole estates assembled in convention swore to give him dutiful obedience. His command was to endure, they said, ‘so long as we are necessitat to be in armes for the defence of the covenant, for religione, crowne, and countrie, and ay and whill the Lord send peace to this kingdome.’ He claimed much dignity for his office, sitting ‘at table with the best of


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/77

Rh the nobility of Scotland, at the upper end, covered, and they all bareheaded,’ and in joint letters ‘he signs before them all’ (State Papers, Dom. 1639, pp. 226, 234).

As Charles drew near the borders Leslie marched his army, which consisted of thirty thousand horse and foot, southwards to meet him, encamping first at Dunglas, and afterwards on Duns Law, where he maintained in the castle, at his own expense, says Baillie, ‘ane honourable table for the nobles and strangers with himself. … The fare was as became a generall in tyme of warr’ (Letters, i. 212, 214). Charles, encamped before Berwick, offered 500l. sterling for Leslie's head. Leslie was unwilling to fight if fighting could be averted, but his duty was to be prepared, and he issued rousing and practically worded manifestoes urging his fellow-countrymen to prompt and united action in order to prevent invasion (ib. vol. ii. App. pp. 438, 442).

The unreadiness of either side to assume the offensive resulted in the opening of negotiations, and a treaty of pacification was concluded in June 1639. The king insisted that Leslie's commission should be cancelled. The Scots were unwilling to yield on this point, but Leslie asked permission to resign, and removed the difficulty. The peace, however, was very short-lived. In November Leslie again placed his services at the disposal of the committee of estates, and superintended the work of reorganising the army. On 1 Nov. he was presented with the freedom of the town of Perth (burgess ticket in the Melville Charter-chest), and on 1 April 1640 Edinburgh conferred upon him a similar honour (ib.) In March 1640 the estates offered Leslie the generalship of their army to be held conjointly with some of their own number, but he declined it on such terms, and on 17 April his former sole commission was renewed to him by the convention, and was confirmed to him by parliament in the following June.

The new campaign opened with an unsuccessful attack by Leslie on Edinburgh Castle (Memorie of the Somervilles, ii. 223–70), and a vessel belonging to him, laden with arms and ammunition, was seized at sea. Provoked by these rebuffs, he declared that if a satisfactory reply from the king to the Scots' demands was not forthcoming he would at once carry the war into England (State Papers, 1640, pp. 313, 336). Meanwhile he with other Scottish leaders had signed a letter to Louis XIII of France, reminding him of the ancient friendship between the two countries, and bespeaking his friendly offices in their behalf with Charles. It was addressed ‘Au roy,’ and fell into Charles's hands. The English king judged its superscription treasonable. But a summons sent to Leslie and the other signatories to stand their trial in London was naturally disregarded.

By the beginning of July Leslie's army was concentrated upon the borders. His intention was to seize Newcastle and the English coal-fields there, but he did not cross the Tweed until the middle of August. On the occasion Secretary Windebank penned a squib, in which Leslie was compared to William the Conqueror, and was represented as assuring his men of certain conquest and ready fortunes (State Papers, Dom. 1640, p. 612). The Scots encountered no opposition until they reached the Tyne at Newburn, where after a brief struggle they forced the passage of the river, took possession of Newcastle, and within a brief space reduced all the surrounding country as far south as the Tees. Leslie remained at Newcastle for a whole year, and there welcomed to the Scottish army twenty-six of his distinguished comrades in the German wars. Charles was during the period at York, but few in his camp were anxious to begin hostilities. At length a submissive petition to Charles from the Scots at Newcastle, craving redress of their national grievances, led to the opening of negotiations at Ripon, and they were concluded at London on 7 Aug. 1641.

A few days later Charles set out for Scotland in person. In passing through Newcastle he was received with demonstrative loyalty by the Scottish army, and was magnificently entertained by Leslie. He and his army afterwards followed Charles northwards, and marching to Hirsel Law, Leslie disbanded his troops. On 30 Aug. he was present with the king in Edinburgh at a banquet given by the provost in the great parliament hall, and as lord general took precedency there of all the Scottish nobles. Charles wrote to the queen that Leslie drove round the town with him amidst the shouts of the people. Leslie was reported to have said that he saw the king was ill-used; that he had served his country to settle religion, and this being done, he would now serve his king against those that would imperil his crown. It was suspected that Leslie's views were influenced by the hope of an earldom (Nicholas Papers, Camd. Soc., i. 52). But when he secretly learned of the plot of the royalists—known as ‘the Incident’—to kidnap Argyll, Hamilton, and his brother Lanark, the leaders of the party hostile to the king, he privately gave them the warning that enabled them to escape. The king subsequently complained that Leslie ought


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/78

Rh to have at once brought the disclosures to him, but the general excused himself by saying that the affair was ‘a foolish business.’ Charles came to parliament on the day following the flight of the lords, accompanied by five hundred armed troopers. The members refused to proceed to business until Leslie received a special commission to guard the parliament with the troops at his command, consisting of a few foot regiments which had been retained at the general disbanding. In the same parliament Leslie gracefully secured a revocation of the sentence of forfeiture pronounced against his old comrade in Germany, Patrick Ruthven, lord Ettrick, who had held Edinburgh Castle for the king in the late war (Acts of Parliament of Scotland, v. 382;, Annals, iii. 102). At the parliament's request the king created Leslie Earl of Leven and Lord Balgonie with elaborate ceremony on 6 Nov. (ib. pp. 139–41). Solemnly and with an oath Leslie is asserted to have then told the king ‘that he would never more serve against him, but that whenever his majesty required his services he should have them, and that he (Leven) would never ask what the cause was’ (, Rebellion, ii. 38, 581). The patent as earl was dated at Holyrood 11 Oct. 1641 (cf. Melville Book, ii. 167; State Papers, Dom. 1641–3, p. 161). His appointment as captain of the castle of Edinburgh and as a privy councillor followed.

At the same time the parliament, on whose chief committees he served, voted him one hundred thousand merks (between 5,000l. and 6,000l. sterling), with current interest till paid, confirmed all his estates to him by a special act, and formally acknowledged his ‘pietie, valour, wisdome, and good governmente’ in recent events. When the session closed he formally resigned his office of lord-general, but was retained in command of all the standing forces. He became a member of the executive committee of the estates for the government of the country during the recess (Acts of Parliaments of Scotland, v. 392–450;, Annals, iii. 159–63).

In November 1641, while in Scotland, Charles introduced his nephew, the young prince elector palatine, to the Scottish parliament, and appealed for aid in gaining the young man's kingdom of Bohemia. The matter was committed to the consideration of four noblemen, of whom Leven was one, and they reported next day that ten thousand Scottish foot might be sent on the country's charges to any convenient German port on the prince's service. Elizabeth, queen dowager of Bohemia, writing to Sir Thomas Roe, ascribed this decision to Leven's influence. Leven at once wrote to the Swedish chancellor, Axel Oxenstierna, suggesting a union of the Swedish and Scottish forces in behalf of Bohemia, but the arrival in Scotland of the news of the rising in Ireland and the massacre of the protestants there led to the despatch to Ireland of the forces intended for Bohemia. Leven was appointed general of the army, under a commission granted by Charles at York, on 7 May 1642.

The Scottish army crossed to Ireland in the spring, but Leven did not proceed thither until August. On 6 July Dunbar, and on 1 Aug. Ayr, had previously conferred their civic freedom on him. Personally he took little part in the Irish campaign. According to the hostile testimony of Sir James Turner, a major-general in the expedition, he soon had to face the outbreak of a mutiny among his officers, and Turner adds that it was owing to his inability to quell the insubordination that he quickly returned to Scotland, leaving the command to Robert Monro (, Memoirs, p. 19). More probably, however, his return was due to the invitation of the English parliament (November 1642) to take part in the war with Charles. On his journey from Ireland to Edinburgh Glasgow conferred the honour of its freedom on him on 2 Dec. (burgess tickets in Leven and Melville Charter-chest).

Leven joined the convention of the estates which was summoned to consider the appeal of the English parliament. In July 1643 the latter begged for the assistance of an army of eleven thousand men under Leven's leadership, and as soon as the commissioners of the English parliament agreed to adopt the solemn league and covenant, the Scottish convention gave orders for the immediate raising of the levies and appointed Leven to the command (Hist. MSS. Comm. 5th Rep. App. p. 96). He accepted the post of ‘lord general’ without hesitation. ‘It is true,’ says Baillie, ‘he past manie promises to the king that he would no more fight in his contrare; bot,’ as he declares, ‘it was with the expresse and necessar condition that religion and country's rights were not in hazard; as all indifferent men think now they are in a verie evident one’ (Letters, ii. 100).

The Scottish army, composed of twenty thousand foot and two thousand horse, was ready for action by the end of 1643, and on 8 Jan. 1644 Leven was ordered to lead it into England. It was midwinter, and the ice which covered the Tweed was so strong that on the 19th the army crossed upon it, baggage-wagons and all. Leven made for his former ford on the Tyne at Newburn, but


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/79

Rh that spot was too strongly fortified, and he crossed the river higher up at Ovingham, just in time to avoid the flood of melting snow which next day rendered the stream impassable. Newcastle, on being summoned, refused to surrender, and Leven for a time did little more than maintain his ground and prevent the royalist army in the neighbourhood under the Marquis of Newcastle from proceeding to the assistance of the king. After his arrival in England he was appointed commander-in-chief of all the ‘British and Scottish’ forces in Ireland, by a joint committee of the two kingdoms, which managed the war, but he never personally assumed that command.

In April he was ordered to proceed to York, which Lord Newcastle held, and he lay before it for nine or ten weeks (, Memorials, p. 90); but when Prince Rupert arrived with a large army from the west for the relief of the city, the siege was raised and the combined Scottish and parliamentary forces met the royalists on 2 July on Marston Moor. Within half an hour one of Rupert's brilliant cavalry charges threw the wing of the army under the command of Leven and Fairfax into utter confusion. Leven failed to rally his troops, he was himself forced to fly, and galloped as far as Wetherby or even Leeds (, Memoirs, p. 38). Meanwhile his lieutenant, David Leslie [q. v.], and Cromwell had won the day. He returned immediately on receiving the tidings, and on 16 July York surrendered (, Civil War, i. 445).

Newcastle still held out, and Leven marched thither, having been reinforced from Scotland with an army under the Earl of Callendar. His ‘very fair’ conditions of capitulation were rejected on 18 Oct., and on the following day the town was stormed with the aid of three thousand countrymen whom Leven had pressed into his service with their spades and mattocks (, p. 100). A few days later he received the surrender of Tynemouth Castle (State Papers, Dom. 1644–5, pp. 51, 75, 122).

In January 1645 the earl was present at a meeting of parliament in Edinburgh, whence he was recalled to his command in order to prevent the advance of Montrose from the highlands to the king's aid in the west of England. Leven marched into Westmoreland, but the failure of the English parliament to send him payment for his army hampered his movements, and in order to support his army he was obliged to permit his soldiers to plunder the farmers far and near. In June he marched southwards as far as Gloucestershire, and after the king's defeat at Naseby (14 June) was directed to invest Hereford. He had prepared his batteries to open fire on the town when the approach of Charles with an army forced him to raise the siege (, Civil War in Herefordshire, ii. 391). He retreated into Yorkshire and joined his forces to those then engaged in besieging Newark. The English houses of parliament directed that he should have chief command of all the forces there, both English and Scottish. But while the siege was still in progress he received orders from Scotland to return to Newcastle.

Pecuniary difficulties, due to the neglect of the English parliament, and an attempt made in Scotland to create another generalship, co-ordinate and therefore conflicting with his own, seem to have now led Leven to press his resignation on the Scottish parliament. But the latter was not prepared to part with him, and issued a declaration stating that any commissions granted by them to others in no way derogated from his position as general of the whole forces within and without the kingdom (Acts of Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vi. pt. i. p. 411). The English parliament sent at the same time a letter of thanks for past services, and promised him a jewel of the value of 500l. (, p. 163), which was presented 23 Feb. 1647 (ib. pp. 232, 233, 241).

Leven had regarded with no favour recent royalist endeavours to win the Scottish army to the service of the king, and letters forwarded to him on the subject he had sent to the parliament at Edinburgh. But when Charles fled to Newark (5 May 1645), Leven's officers soon brought him to the general's quarters at Newcastle, and acting on instructions from Scotland, Leven placed him in safe keeping, out of the reach of ‘all papists and delinquents.’ On receiving the king Leven is said to have tendered his sword in token of submission, and the king retained it as if he would assume command, whereupon the earl suggested that it were better to leave that to him as the older soldier, especially as he was in command here, though in humble duty to his majesty. Whitelocke says that Charles was received without any solemnity (ib. p. 206). The king remained with Leven at Newcastle until his surrender to the English parliament was arranged by the Scottish parliament in January 1647. Leven and other officers constantly appealed to Charles to take the covenant, and to terminate, by prudent and liberal measures, the civil disorders of his realms, vowing that if he did so they would cheerfully sacrifice life and fortune in his service.

On Leven's return to Scotland a large


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/80

Rh portion of the army was retained for the suppression of the royalists in the north, and he was continued in his office as lord general of all the forces, with a yearly salary of ten thousand merks (nearly 560l. sterling). His great age and infirmity, however, necessitated his exemption from active service in the field, except in special circumstances. An act was passed by the parliament approving his conduct of the army at home and in England and Ireland during the past nine years, and in March 1647 a jewel of the value of ten thousand merks, of which nothing further is known, was promised him (Acts of Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vi. pt. i. pp. 672–777 passim). The despatch of a Scottish army for the rescue of the king, in accordance with a secret engagement made by Scottish commissioners with the king at Carisbrooke, and in agreement with a vote of the majority of the Scottish parliament, met with no approval from Leven. In the discussion he sided with Argyll and the other members of the so-called ‘honest’ or ‘godly party,’ which was powerfully supported by the Scottish church. Leven and Argyll drew up a ‘petition of the army,’ embodying the contention of the church that before arms should be taken for the king's relief religion and the covenant must first be secured. Nevertheless parliament invited Leven to resume the active command of the army in England. ‘The old generall,’ wrote Baillie, ‘for all his infirmitie, is acceptable;’ but the same writer reports that the Duke of Hamilton, the Earl of Callendar, and others who were foremost in support of the Engagement, as the English expedition was called, ‘with threats and promises moved old Lesley to lay down his place’ (Letters, iii. 40, 45). Clarendon says: ‘He was in the confidence of Argyll, which was objection enough against him, if there were no other’ (Hist. Rebellion, vi. 44). Finally parliament, on 11 May 1648, with renewed expressions of veneration, relieved him of his command at, it was formally stated, his own request, but decreed at the same time that on the removal of this army out of the kingdom, should it be necessary to raise any new forces for its defence, Leven by the fact became ‘lord generall of these forces’ (Acts of Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vi. pt. ii. pp. 68, 88).

Consequently, after Cromwell's overthrow of the Scots under Hamilton at Preston (17 Aug. 1648), Leven had immediately to adopt vigorous efforts and to raise a new army, not only to defend the country against Cromwell's vengeance, but also to prevent the remnants of Hamilton's army, which were returning and reforming under his brother, the Earl of Lanark, from replacing the military party in power. Aided by David Leslie, who like his chief had taken no part in the Engagement, Leven assembled an army of eight thousand horse and foot at Edinburgh, and Argyll's party assumed the government. A deputation was sent to meet Cromwell upon the borders, and he was induced to visit Edinburgh as a peaceful guest. During his stay Leven gave him a sumptuous banquet in the castle, of which he was keeper, and at his departure saluted him with rounds of firing from ordnance large and small (, Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, Nos. lxxv. lxxvii.) Lambert also visited Leven (Hist. MSS. Comm. 10th Rep. pt. vi. p. 171). Leven's reinstatement in office as general was formally recognised by the Scottish parliament, which met on 4 Jan. 1649, and he entreated the parliament to apply to the repair of the castle of Edinburgh, which he declared was ruinous and insecure, the sum of money that had been voted to him in 1641, but was still unpaid. He received some money, which enabled him to carry out only a portion of his scheme.

When Scotland adopted the cause of Charles II, Leven, in anticipation of an invasion by Cromwell, was asked to superintend the levies for a new army. He again sought to be released from the active duties of his office on account of his infirmities, and formally laid down his baton before the parliament and quitted the house; but he was summoned back and informed that, ‘seeing he had so able a depute [in David Leslie], they would be careful to lay no more upon him than he could undergo, and with which his great age might comport’ (, Annals, iv. 58, 59). When, therefore, Cromwell marched towards Scotland in July 1650, Leven, pursuing the military tactics of former days, laid waste the southern counties and concentrated his army in and around Edinburgh for defensive purposes only. He relied on starvation to weaken the invading force. Prince Charles soon offered to sally forth in person and attack Cromwell, but Leven told him if he did so he would lay down his commission (, p. 468). The plan answered his expectations. After a month's forced inaction Cromwell retired. Leven and his lieutenant, David Leslie, followed and occupied the passes beyond Dunbar, but in the early morning of 3 Sept. Cromwell completely routed the Scottish army. Leven fled to Edinburgh, which he reached at two in the afternoon; but Cromwell was at the gates, and he at once removed, with what remained of the army, towards Stirling. The disaster was laid on all sides


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/81

Rh to his charge; there was talk of superseding him at once; the king was for Lord Ruthven and the kirk for Lord Lothian (ib. p. 472). In November, when the Scottish parliament, presided over by Charles II in person, met at Perth, Leven, assuming full responsibility, petitioned them ‘to take exact tryall of all his cariages in there severall services, and especiallie concerning the late vnhappie bussienes at Dunbar.’ The king and the estates in reply exonerated him from all censure ‘in relation to all his former imploymentis and service, with ample approbatione for his fidelitie thairin’ (Acts of Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vi. pt. ii. pp. 609, 618, 624). At the next meeting of the parliament, in March 1651, Leven made one more effort to be relieved of his command, but, as of old, the parliament declined his request (ib. vol. vi. pt. ii. p. 651).

In 1650 Leven purchased the estate of Inchmartine in the parish of Errol and Carse of Gowrie, and changed its name to Inchleslie. There in June 1651, while Leven was with the army, his wife died; she was buried at Balgonie (, Diary, p. 31). In August 1651 Leven was with the Scottish committee of estates, and was concerting with them measures for raising a new army to relieve Dundee, which Monck was besieging. On Thursday 28 Aug. the committee met at Elliot in Angus, when Colonel Alured, with his regiment of horse and three troops of dragoons, fell upon them unexpectedly, and made most of them prisoners. Leven was carried to Dundee, and thence by sea to London, where he was placed in the Tower. On 1 Oct. his son-in-law, Ralph Delavall of Seaton Delavall, obtained permission to supply him with some necessaries, while two days later Cromwell himself moved in the English council that the liberty of the Tower should be granted him, and his servant be allowed to wait on him. Delavall shortly afterwards was permitted to carry the earl to his own residence in Northumberland, on furnishing securities in his own person and two relatives for the sum of 20,000l. that the earl would confine himself there and twelve miles around, and otherwise carry himself as a true prisoner of parliament (State Papers, Dom. 1651 pp. 431, 458, 465, 1651–2 pp. 12, 16, 17). He paid a visit to London in 1652, in order to recover his estates, which had been sequestrated, and he seems on this visit to have been again temporarily incarcerated by mistake in the Tower. Queen Christina of Sweden and her successor, King Charles X, both wrote to Cromwell praying for his freedom. In 1654 he recovered full liberty, his lands were restored, and he was exempted from the fine which had been imposed on the other Scottish nobles. He returned to Balgonie, his Fifeshire seat, on 25 May 1654 (, Diary, p. 72), and spent his remaining years in settling his affairs. He died at Balgonie 4 April 1661, and was buried on the 19th in the church at Markinch.

As a general, Leven's unrivalled experience inspired confidence in his soldiers. But his manner was so unassuming that his superiors felt that they could trust him with almost dictatorial power without fearing that he would abuse it. In person he was little and crooked; but his wise exercise of authority won universal respect. The nobles of Scotland, in spite of their jealousies and haughty temper, ‘with ane incredible submission, from the beginning to the end [of the wars in Scotland], gave over themselves to be guided by him as if he had been great Solyman. … Yet that was the man's understanding of our Scotts humours that he gave out, not onlie to the nobles, but to verie mean gentlemen, his directions in a verie homelie and simple forme, as if they had been bot the advyces of their neighbour and companion’ (, Letters, i. 213, 214). Although in Scotland Leven declined to accept any joint command, he proved himself, at the siege of York and Marston Moor, well able to act in harmonious co-operation with the parliamentary generals Fairfax and the Earl of Manchester. They courteously allowed him to sign their joint despatches first, and designated him ‘His Excellency,’ a title which he had brought with him from Germany. His influence, even with the English generals, seems to have been similar to that wielded by him among the Scottish nobles. When jealousies sprang up later among the English parliamentary generals on points of precedency, the joint committee bade the rivals take ‘as an example the fair and amicable agreement that was between the three generals at Marston Moor and the taking of York, where in all that time they were together there never grew any dispute nor differences about command’ (State Papers, Dom. 1644, passim).

By his wife, Agnes Renton, he had two sons and five daughters. The daughters were (1) Barbara, who married General Sir John Ruthven of Dinglas; (2) Christian, who married Walter Dundas of Dundas; (3) Anne, who married, first, Hugh, master of Lovat, and secondly, Sir Ralph Delavall of Seaton Delavall; (4) Margaret, who married James Crichton, first viscount of Frendraught [q. v.]; and (5) Mary, who married William, third lord Cranstoun. His two sons both predeceased him, the elder, Gustavus, when young, and the second, Alexander, lord Balgonie, who