text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/362

Rh as Mrs. Liston, was Mrs. Chequer to the Chequer of Liston in ‘Arbitration,’ attributed to Reynolds. Her biographers, one and all, assign her marriage to the following year. She played very many parts, including Tilburina in the ‘Critic,’ Anna, an original character, in Reynolds's ‘Exile,’ Mrs. Sneak in the ‘Battle of Hexham,’ Pink in the ‘Young Quaker,’ Audrey, &c. When Liston took, on 31 May 1822, at Covent Garden his farewell of that theatre, Mrs. Liston, whose appearance on the stage had become infrequent, took her farewell of the stage, reciting a valedictory ode by Colman. She died in 1854.

LISTON, ROBERT (1742–1836), diplomatist, second son of Patrick Liston of Torbanehill, West Lothian, was born at Overtoun in the parish of Kirkliston 8 Oct. 1742. He studied at Edinburgh University, and when scarcely twenty was selected by Dr. John Drysdale [q. v.] and Professor Dugald Stewart for the post of private tutor to the sons of Sir Gilbert Elliot, bart., of Stobs [see, 1722–1777]. He was allowed two years ‘to perfect himself in classics, law, and dancing’ (, Life and Letters, i. 31). He then started with his pupils, Gilbert, aged 12, afterwards first Earl of Minto [see, first ], and Hugh, aged 10 [see ], for Paris, where they pursued their studies for several years under the general supervision of the historian, David Hume (1711–1776) [q. v.] Later, when Hugh Elliot adopted a diplomatic career, Liston became his private secretary, and accompanied him on his missions to Munich, Ratisbon, and Berlin [see ]. When Lord Mountstewart, afterwards first Marquis of Bute, was sent as ambassador extraordinary to Madrid in March 1783, Liston was appointed secretary of embassy, his first diplomatic appointment. He succeeded Mountstewart as minister plenipotentiary at Madrid on 4 May 1783, and held the post until August 1788. His correspondence with the fifth Duke of Leeds during the period is in Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 28061–6. On 14 May 1785 he was made LL.D. Edinburgh. Liston was envoy extraordinary at Stockholm from 22 Aug. 1788 to 18 May 1793, and ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at Constantinople from 25 Sept. 1793 to 16 Feb. 1796. On 17 Feb. 1796 he was appointed ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at Washington. Soon after his arrival in America a scheme was proposed to him for the seizure of New Orleans by a British naval force concurrently with an attack by the Crees and Cherokees on the Spanish posts in Upper Louisiana. Liston refused to entertain the proposal, on the double ground of the breach of neutrality involved and the inhumanity of thus employing the Indians. The scheme was not countenanced at home (see Correspondance qui dévoile, &c., No. 16). Liston remained at Washington until the peace of Amiens. He was then appointed envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the Batavian republic, and remained at the Hague until 14 May 1804, after which he retired upon pension during seven years. On the renewal of diplomatic relations with Turkey in 1811, he was appointed ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at Constantinople. He sailed for Gibraltar in the Argo frigate on 8 April 1812, accompanied by Brigadier-general Sir Robert Thomas Wilson [q. v.] as special military commissioner. Wilson's diary of the journey through Sicily, Greece, and Turkey to the Bosphorus forms Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 30160. Liston was admitted to the privy council in 1812, and G.C.B. (civil) on 21 Oct. 1816. He remained as ambassador at Constantinople until 18 Oct. 1821, when he retired on a pension, after thirty and a half years' diplomatic service. He died at his residence, Millburn Tower, near Edinburgh, on 15 July 1836, at the age of ninety-three. He was an accomplished linguist in ten languages, but during the last four years of his life lost the power of articulate speech. He was at his death ‘the father of the diplomatic body throughout Europe’ (Gent. Mag. 1836, ii. 539). Liston married, at Glasgow, on 27 Feb. 1796, Henrietta, daughter of Nathaniel Marchant of Jamaica. She died childless in 1828 (Scots Mag. lviii. 143). [Life and Letters of the First Earl of Minto, 1751–1806, London, 1874, 8vo; Malmesbury


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/40

 The language of the Miller opinion itself answers this contention. This Court there noted decisions "holding that justification for noncompliance [with the requirement of statement of purpose] exists in exigent circumstances, as, for example, when the officers may in good faith believe * * * that the person to be arrested is fleeing or attempting to destroy evidence. People v. Maddox, 46 Cal. 2d 301, 294 P. 2d 6." The Court then stated that whether the rule admits of such exception "is not a question we are called upon to decide in this case" (id., 309), and continued (357 U.S. at 310), "It may be that, without an express announcement of purpose, the facts known to officers would justify them in being virtually certain that the petitioner already knows their purpose so that an announcement would be a useless gesture. Cf. People v. Martin, 45 Cal. 2d 755, 290 P. 2d 855; Wilgus, Arrest Without a Warrant, 22 Mich. L. Rev. 541, 798, 802 (1924)."

The facts in Miller were very different from those in this case. In Miller, the police were not in uniform and the Court questioned whether the concededly low-voiced enunciation of the word "police" had been heard (357 U.S. at 311). Here, the officer showed his badge and stated, "I am a federal narcotics agent", before Toy slammed the door and ran (supra, pp. 2 4, 29-30). In Miller, 357 U.S. at 311:

[Miller's] reaction upon opening the door could only have created doubt in the officers' minds that he knew they were police intent on arresting him * * * [A]gent Wilson testified that "he wanted to know what we were doing

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


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Swadlincote

SWADLINCOTE, swŏd'lĭn-kot. A town in Derbyshire, England, 4 miles southeast of Burton-upon-Trent. Its industries comprise coal-mining and the various branches of earthenware manufacture. Population, in 1891, 13,889; in 1901, 18,014.


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/41

 there." This query, which went unanswered, is on its face inconsistent with knowledge. * * *

Here, there was no such query by Toy—he slammed the door and ran as soon as he knew he was confronted by a narcotic agent, without giving the. agent an attempt to explain his purpose.

This case is governed, not by Miller, but by the authorities referred to in Miller as the basis for a possible exception. The forcing of entry here was necessary and lawful. In People v. Maddox, 46 Cal. 2d 301, referred to in Miller (supra, p. 34), the court said (p. 306):

It was not until Toy's flight that the officer undertook to arrest Toy, and Toy's flight prevented the officer's advising him in specific words that he was to be


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/42

. The officer was acting lawfully in pursuing Toy in order that the arrest would not be frustrated.

C. PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ARREST OF PETITIONER WONG SUN WAS FURNISHED BY THE COMBINED, CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OF YEE AND PETITIONER TOY

1. Petitioners suggest (Pet. Supp. Br. 14) that the arrest of Wong Sun was unlawful because the officers relied upon narcotics obtained from and statements made by Yee at the time of Yee's arrest, claiming that the arrest of Yee was itself unlawful. The point has no merit.

No question was raised at the trial as to the lawfulness of the arrest of Yee per se and it is too late to raise one now. Nor is there any question as to the way in which the officers obtained the narcotics from Yee. Petitioners' suggestion that the agent's testimony that Yee "surrendered" the narcotics is "conclusionary" (Supp. Br. 14) is refuted by the record. On cross-examination, Agent Nickoloff was asked, "And you made a search of his premises, Johnny Yee's home or premises?". The officer replied, "No, I didn't actually make a search. He surrendered the


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/43

 (R. 66). This shows that the officer was distinguishing between a search and voluntary delivery. There is accordingly no basis in this record for a challenge to the arrest of Yee or the receipt of the narcotics.

Moreover, Yee's designation of Wong Sun as one of the suppliers of narcotics (the other being Toy) was not made at the time the officers were in Yee's home, but later, in the office of the Bureau of Narcotics. As we discuss generally infra, this voluntary statement, made after a period for reflection, represents an intervening independent act of volition which would not be tainted even if Yee's arrest were illegal. Yee's statement was accordingly a factor on which the officers could properly rely as one of the circumstances giving them probable cause to arrest Wong Sun.

2. It is without significance that the record does not show any prior acquaintance of the officers with Yee. His accusation of "Sea Dog" and Toy as the suppliers of the narcotics was significantly corroborated before the officers arrested Wong Sun on the morning of June 4. First, of course, Yee was not speaking without corroboration—his statement that he had been furnished heroin was substantiated by his actual possession. His statement that Toy had been one of the two who furnished the heroin was substantiated by Toy's similarly detailed knowledge of Yee's possession of the narcotics, as revealed in Toy's earlier statement to the officers. Yee's tie-in of "Sea


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/44

 Dog" with Toy dove-tailed immediately thereafter with Toy's knowledge of the real name of "Sea Dog" (Wong Sun) and Toy's knowledge of where the latter lived. Further, the federal narcotics agent's familiar greeting to Wong Sun's wife by first name, before arresting him (supra, p. 6), warrants the inference that Wong Sun, who had a prior conviction for a narcotics offense, was known to the officer. The likelihood of recidivism in narcotics offenses is strong Rodgers v. United States, 267 F. 2d 79, 87 (C.A. 9); Reyes v. United States, 258 F. 2d 774, 785 (C.A. 9). This element was, at the least, a further factor properly to be taken into account in the judgment of the officers that Wong Sun was probably guilty of a narcotics offense, as asserted by Yee earlier that morning.

In short, both Toy and Wong Sun were arrested upon reasonable grounds for belief by the officers that the two had committed a narcotics offense. If the arrests were lawful, the judgment of the court of appeals below can properly be sustained upon that basis, without more. However, since the court of appeals upheld the convictions on the ground that they rested, not upon evidence seized in the arrests, but upon the actual finding of the heroin in Yee's house, and the voluntary statements and confessions of petitioners and Yee, we proceed now to discuss the validity of the judgment below upon that basis.


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/45

On the assumption that the arrests were illegal, petitioners contend that all the evidence obtained after those arrests must be deemed the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and therefore inadmissible. The court below rejected this contention, holding that the voluntary statements by petitioners—by Toy at the time of his arrest and by both, later, after arraignment—were sufficiently independent so that they could not be said to be the product of the arrests. If this question need be reached, we submit that the decision of the court of appeals is correct.

There can be no doubt that if evidence sought to be introduced is the true product of illegal government action it is not admissible in a federal prosecution. The Court, however, has never held nor said that any evidence which would not have been obtained but for the illegal conduct is automatically inadmissible. Rather, the test has been the proximity of the connection between the improper official activity and the particular evidence proffered by the government. Where the bond is direct and unbroken the rule of exclusion applies, but where the connection is attenuated or the nexus is cut by sufficient intervening conduct the evidence is acceptable. In our view, a voluntary decision by defendants (or third parties)


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/46

 freely to give information to arresting officers, when in truth it is freely given, breaks the link; the resulting evidence is not then attributable to, or the product of, the illegal arrests. Such freely-given declarations are the product of a human being's voluntary choice to speak rather than to remain silent when he could freely decline to say anything.

1. The general rule is illustrated by Silverthorne v. United StatesSilverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States [sic], 251 U.S. 385, which laid down the "poisonous tree" doctrine. There, the government seized evidence, made photostats, and studied the documents. After the documents had been ordered returned as illegally seized, the government attempted by subpoena to have the evidence produced for use at a trial. In reversing a conviction for contempt for failure to honor the subpoena, this Court pointed out that knowledge of the existence and contents of the documents was the direct result of the government's wrongful action and held that the government could not thus profit from its own wrong. Suppression of evidence would have little meaning, the Court said, if such a direct product of illegal action could be introduced in evidence. Similarly, where officers, as the result of an illegal entry, observe incriminating facts, testimony as to their observations is the direct product of the illegal entry and is excludable. E.g., McGinnis v. United States, 227 F. 2d 598 (C.A. 1) (cited by petitioners). There is obviously a direct connection between the illegal entry and the officers' observations.


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/47

 This Court also applied the "poisonous tree" doctrine in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, holding that evidence would be inadmissible, not only if obtained directly from illegal wire-tapping, but also if obtained from leads or clues stemming from the wire-tapping. The Court indicated, however, that the connection between the illegal official conduct and the evidence must be direct and adequate. The opinion carefully pointed out, with respect to the relationship between the officers' misconduct and the government's proof (308 U.S. at 341):

2. On the other hand, the Court has recognized that, even though illegal action by government officers has in some degree contributed to the obtaining of evidence ultimately used, nevertheless, if that evidence represents primarily an act of human free will, the evidence is admissible. In United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532, 540–541, the Court held admissible a confession voluntarily given, without regard to


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/48

 whether a confession six months earlier had been lawfully or unlawfully obtained. The Court said:

We believe that it is the concept of an intervening independent act of a free will—the defendant, as a human being, can choose to speak or to remain silent—which furnishes the rationale for the rule (which pertains generally in state and federal courts) that a statement or confession voluntarily made during detention, without compulsion and without undue delay in arraignment, is not rendered inadmissible by the illegality of the original arrest. Smith v. United States, 254 F. 2d 751, 758–759 (C.A. D.C.), certiorari denied, 357 U.S. 937; United States v. Walker, 197 F. 2d 287, 289–290 (C.A. 2), certiorari denied, 344 U.S. 877; Gibson v. United States, 149 F.


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/49

 2d 381, 384 (C.A. D.C.), certiorari denied sub nom. O'Kelley v. United States, 326 U.S. 724.

3. Where, at the time and place of an illegal arrest or an illegal search, a defendant makes statements which are themselves evidence or which lead to other evidence, the situation lies between those we have just discussed. On the one side, the illegal official action is still occurring and its effects may, to a greater or less degree, still be operative. On the other, the statements, if not coerced, do represent an independent intervening act of free will on the part of the defendant. As Judge (later Chief Justice) Vinson said in Nueslein v. District of Columbia, 115 F. 2d 690, 692 (C.A. D.C.), there "exists the heaviest cross-fire between the legal significance of voluntary declarations, and a completely unlawful entry into a home." It is not always easy to decide whether the statements are truly the product of the illegal government action or result from an intervening independent act of volition. But it seems clear to us that there should be no general rule barring all statements or admissions made in connection with or after an illegal arrest. For instance, if an individual arrested without probable cause while walking on a busy street blurts out at once in remorse—before the officer says anything more than "I arrest you"—that he is guilty of stealing certain goods and will make restitution, it would seem unwise to bar that


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/50

 confession or the evidence of larceny obtained as a result of the confession. Human beings do normally have power to control their own speech, and, when they do choose to speak, their words, if voluntary, cannot be simply equated, without more, to intangible objects observed or discovered in the course of an illegal arrest or search.

To us, what the existing decisions show is that the question whether a statement made at the time of an illegal entry or illegal arrest should or should not be deemed admissible cannot be settled by any fixed rule but must essentially represent a judgment, based on all the circumstances, as to whether the illegal government action or the voluntary act of the defendant is the primary motivating force behind the production or discovery of the evidence. The leading case holding that voluntary admissions at the time of an invalid search are admissible is Quan v. State, 185 Miss. 513.


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/51

 Yet, under other circumstances, where a confession that there was whiskey in a suitcase came as the result of an officer's illegally taking the suitcase from a moving train, the Mississippi court held that the Quan rule did not apply and that the admission should not have been allowed in evidence. In the latter case the illegal seizure left the defendant no choice to give or withhold the information; the officer had already seized it. Harris v. State, 209 Miss. 183. The California courts, since adopting the rule of exclusion, have held inadmissible admissions made under the actual compulsion. of an illegal search or arrest. People v. Dixon, 46 Cal. 2d 456 (1956); People v. Macias, 180 Cal. App. 2d 193 (1960). Yet California has held that this rule does not apply to an attempt at bribery made when a person was illegally arrested. People v. Guillory, 178 Cal. App. 2d 854. Thus, even California, which has applied stringent rules in this field, does not hold inadmissible any statement by the defendant which would not have been made but for the unlawful arrest; where the statement is the deliberate and voluntary act of the defendant, California has permitted it to be used.

4. Where a defendant makes statements directly related to things unlawfully seized, the unlawful seizure may well be considered the primary force behind warrant, the party whose premises are being searched may remain wholly silent, if he chose so to do. And, on the other hand, any responsible and competent person is at liberty to speak as against himself or against his own interests at any time or place or under any and all circumstances, so long as he freely and voluntarily does so.


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/52

 the statement—nothing else appearing. As the Ninth Circuit phrased it in Takahashi v. United States, 143 F. 2d 118, 122, "all declarations and statements under the compulsion of the things so seized, are affected by the vice of primary illegality." Cf. however, Quan v. State, discussed supra; Rohlfing v. State, 230 Ind. 236. The situation is quite different where as here (in the case of petitioners) nothing is found and the defendant thus has nothing to explain away.

The decision in Nueslein v. District of Columbia, 115 F. 2d 690 (C.A.D.C.), held that, even though nothing was found after an illegal entry, statements made during the illegal entry were the result of an illegality and therefore inadmissible. Officers, investigating a misdemeanor (an accident in which a taxicab struck a parked car), went to the home of the taxicab owner and entered the home without a warrant and without permission of the owner. The owner admitted that he had been driving the taxi and, since he appeared to the officers to be drunk, the officers placed him under arrest. In holding excludable the admission by the defendant that he was driving the taxicab at the time of the accident, the court of appeals, noting that only a misdemeanor was involved, stressed the desirability of vindicating the right to privacy of a home and ruled that the effective way of protecting that right was "to dissolve the evidence that the officers obtained after entering and remaining illegally in the defendant's home." 115 F. 2d at p. 695. This decision goes far in connecting the admissions with the illegality since the illegal entry in no sense compelled the owner to talk. Even so, that decision does not go as


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/53

 far as would be necessary in this case to hold inadmissible and unusable the statement made by petitioner Toy. In Nueslein the admissions made by the taxicab owner were admissions of guilt as to the very act which prompted the officers to make the illegal entry; they were also made while the man appeared to be intoxicated, not in full possession of his faculties. Here, petitioner Toy, although knowing that the officers had found no narcotics in his house or on his person, deliberately sent them to Johnny Yee in order to divert suspicion from himself. Toy saw an opportunity to sidetrack the officers, and consciously chose to do so.

For this reason, we think the statements in this case are a significant step removed from the Nueslein case and that that step is sufficient for the ruling here to fall on the side of admissibility. The motivating force behind Toy's statement that he knew Yee had narcotics was Toy's own voluntary act of deciding to give that information. Nothing in the entry by officers, nothing the officers found, would have sent them to Yee. The information communicated by the officers to Toy that Hom Way had named Toy as a source of narcotics in no way stemmed from the illegal entry. And it was Hom Way's information which caused Toy to send the officers to Yee. It later turned out that Toy's scheme to divert the agents failed, but at the time he evidently hoped to clear himself. This led to his voluntarily choosing to speak—and his words became the trail to new evidence. In short, petitioner Toy would now


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/54

 have the courts bar evidence that he himself deliberately uncovered.

The present situation is much closer to the bribery case which was before the California court in People v. Guillory, 178 Cal. App. 2d 854, supra, than it is to Nueslein. There, the defendant claimed that the offer of the bribe would not have been made except for the illegal arrest. The court noted that nothing in the arrest compelled the bribe and held that the illegal entry and arrest had nothing to do with the bribery "except as they furnished the setting for it." So here, the illegal entry may have furnished the setting for informing Toy of Hom Way's accusation, but the entry did not cause Toy to send the officers to Yee.

The factual pattern here is also analogous to that before the Second Circuit on the issue of consent in Burgos v. United States, 269 F. 2d 763, 766 (C.A. 2), certiorari denied, 362 U.S. 942. In Burgos, after a defendant had been arrested for illegal entry into the country as an alien, he was asked about narcotics and handed over a small glassine envelope saying that it was for his own use. Subsequently a search disclosed a large quantity of narcotics. Despite the fact that, as petitioner argues, the courts have generally, particularly in recent years, tended to find that consent to a search at the time of arrest is not voluntary, the district court and the court of appeals found that Burgos had voluntarily turned over the glassine envelope. The court of appeals pointed out that he was


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/55

 trying to use the glassine envelope as a cover-up, and that, instead of characterizing his behavior as an admission, it was far more plausible to interpret it as an attempt to ingratiate so as to convince the agents that he was only a "small time user" and might well be released in exchange for a bribe. So here, petitioner Toy tried to divert the agents by sending them to Yee. The propelling force behind the discovery of the narcotics at Yee's house was Toy's own act in sending the agents to Yee. Since it was Toy's deliberate and voluntary act which caused the officers to go to see Yee, the evidence recovered from Yee should be deemed to be Toy's independent responsibility, not the product of illegal government action in entering Toy's house.

5. Petitioners seek to invalidate not only Toy's statement at the laundry, but Yee's voluntary delivery of the narcotics and his unanticipated and independent statement in which he implicated Toy as well as Wong Sun, and even the later, disconnected, full confessions of Toy and Wong Sun, made after an interval of 5 days (after arraignment).

As pointed out supra (pp. 36-37), nothing with respect to Yee's surrender of the narcotics or accusation of Wong Sun and Toy involved any unlawful conduct of the officers. No search was made, and Yee's designation of Wong Sun and Toy as the persons who brought the narcotics to Yee's house was voluntarily made at a later time. He did not make this accusation on the spur of the moment when he delivered the narcotics to the officers at his house, but subsequently at the office of the Bureau of Narcotics,


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/56

 when there had been an interval of time in which to consider whether to disclose his suppliers—an interval of time in which to make an independent voluntary determination as to cooperation or non-cooperation with the officers.

As for the full confessions of the petitioners, which were wholly voluntary and made after arraignment, they were clearly admissible under the well settled rule, noted supra (pp. 41–43), that a later voluntary confession is admissible even if the arrest was illegal.

Petitioners' confessions, as we will point out in detail below, showed that they transported heroin on or about June 1. The independent testimony of the officers showed the delivery of 27 grams of heroin to them by Yee at Yee's house, and showed petitioner Toy's detailed familiarity with the location of Yee's room in the house and even the usual tine for the departure of Yee's mother from the house (R. 63–64). In addition, Yee—in other respects a recalcitrant witness—confirmed his acquaintance with both petitioners Wong Sun and Toy (R. 20). He also testified to an earlier, corroborating statement to the officers, made under oath, that Wong Sun and Toy had come to his house on June 1, prior to midnight, and on June 3, between 11 p. m. and midnight, but he alleged at the trial that his earlier statement had been false (R. 29–30). Taken together, these items of


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/57

 evidence outside the confessions furnished adequate corroboration.

A. CORROBORATION OF A CONFESSION REQUIRES ONLY EVIDENCE THAT WILL TEND TO ESTABLISH THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE CONFESSION, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE CORPUS DELICTI INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CONFESSION

The special problem with respect to reliance on a confession arises out of concern whether a particular confession may be the product of "the aberration or weakness of the accused under the strain of suspicion" (Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 90). But if facts are shown, by evidence other than the confession, demonstrating that the confession is not a fantasy warped by the aberration or weakness of the accused, then the finder of fact—here, the trial judge—may properly attribute the confession to the familiar motivation of an accused person who realizes that he has been caught and may as well tell the truth. The confession may then be weighed upon the basis "that one who is innocent will not imperil his safety or prejudice his interests by an untrue statement" (Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 585).

The limited extent of the corroboration required has been clearly marked by this Court. The essence, as stated in Opper, supra, is that the independent evidence should "tend" to establish the trustworthiness "of the statement"; and it "is sufficient if the corroboration supports the essential facts admitted sufficiently to justify a jury inference of their truth" (348 U.S. at 93).


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/58

 It is equally clear that "the corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti" (Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 93) or, as elaborated in Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 156 (emphasis added):

While it is concededly difficult to match the facts of the various cases in which this type of question arises, the independent testimony here is at least as corroborative as that held sufficient in other cases


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/59

 where the independent evidence was admittedly insufficient to prove the whole case in itself but was found to be enough to indicate that the various admissions were reliable. Thus, in Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, quoted above, an admission that the taxpayer had small net worth at the commencement of an income-tax prosecution period was held sufficiently corroborated by such nondispositive but supporting facts as recitals of low income in tax returns prior to the net worth date. The recitals in earlier returns might well have been falsified but they nevertheless were consistent with the statement of a low net worth. Similarly, the employment of the taxpayer at low pay prior to the net worth date was corroborative of low net worth, although the low pay would not preclude substantial assets held from a long time before, which might have negated a low net worth. Corroboration was also found in the taxpayer's conduct during the prosecution period, in the form of large expenditures and a new racing-news business in which he kept no records (id., 157–159).

In Opper v. United States, supra, 348 U.S. 84, the accused's admission that he paid the money to a government official (although in the admission it was asserted that this was only a loan) was held corroborated by a check drawn by the defendant, together with the records of a concurrent long-distance call to Opper's home from the employee's home, and an airline ticket in the employee's name to Opper's city. There, again, any or all of the


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/60

 could have been explained away upon various hypotheses, but the facts did serve to indicate that the admission by the accused was no mere fantasy or aberration.

We turn now to the corroboration of the confessions in the present case.

1. Wong Sun's confession stated the following: He met petitioner Toy at Marysville, California, about the middle of March, 1959, during a Chinese celebration. They returned to San Francisco together and discussed the possible sale of heroin. Wong Sun informed Toy that he could get a "piece" (28 grams, supra, p. 7) from one "Bill" for $450. Shortly after, Toy told Wong Sun he wanted a piece for "Johnny". Wong Sun knew Johnny only through Toy. Wong Sun obtained the heroin, and did so again on about 7 or 8 additional occasions, on one of which the heroin was for someone other than Johnny. On several occasions after obtaining the first piece, Wong Sun drove with Toy to Johnny's house, 606—11th Avenue (in San Francisco), and Toy would deliver the heroin to Johnny and the three would smoke some of the


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/61

 heroin. Johnny paid Toy $600 for each piece. On three other occasions Wong Sun and Toy went to Johnny's without bringing heroin, and smoked heroin there and obtained some for themselves.

"About" four days before the arrest—i.e., on May 31, with post-midnight events occurring on June 1—Toy gave Wong Sun $450 and, after the latter obtained the heroin, Toy phoned Johnny, and Toy and Wong Sun drove to Johnny's house at about midnight and Toy gave the heroin to Johnny in a rubber contraceptive enclosed in a small brown bag.

On the night before the arrest, before 11 p.m., Toy phoned Johnny, and the two went to Johnny's to smoke heroin for half an hour. They also obtained one "paper" for their own use later.

2. Upon the basis of further substantial evidence at the trial, both the trial judge, as trier of the fact, and the court of appeals below were clearly entitled to conclude that this confession was no mere fantasy or aberration and was properly to be weighed as evidence. The critical portion of the confession—the statement that Wong Sun transported an ounce of heroin from his source of supply to Toy on the night of May 31, 1959, and that he and Toy then transported the heroin to Yee at Yee's house at about midnight—is firmly substantiated by the discovery of 27 grams of heroin at Yee's house on the morning of June 4. That possession was attested in the separate testimony of Agent Nickoloff and by actual production of the heroin in court. No effort was made by petitioners at the trial to ascribe the heroin to any other source.


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/62

 The absence of a part of the ounce, and the division of the heroin into several containers after being brought to Yee's house in one container, substantiate the further portion of Wong Sun's confession that he and Toy had gone to Yee's house again on the night of June 3 and smoked heroin and taken one "paper" for their later use. If the entire ounce had remained in Yee's hands when the officers arrived, there would have been a question as to the source of the heroin smoked and taken by Wong Sun and Toy on the night of June 3. With the elimination of a gram, Wong Sun's confession remains consistent with the evidence delivered to the officers.

The statement in Wong Sun's confession placing Toy at Yee's house on the night of June 3, was further substantiated in Agent Nickoloff's testimony that Toy had admitted to him on June 4 that he had been at Yee's house the night before.

In addition, the separate testimony of Yee, despite his obvious hostility to the government, substantiated other facts stated in Wong Sun's confession. Yee admitted that he knew Wong Sun and he identified him in the courtroom. Consistently with Wong Sun's statements as to the recency and limited nature of his acquaintance with Yee, Yee testified that he had known Wong Sun "just this year", under the nickname "Sea Dog", and did not know whether Wong Sun was a sailor or how the nickname originated. This compared accurately, as is discussed below, with Yee's testimony concerning a longer and closer acquaintance with Toy.


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/63

 The trial court was not required to give credence to Yee's testimony that Wong Sun had not been at his house, for this testimony was impeached by Yee's own admission on the stand that he had given a contrary statement on June 9, under oath, that Wong Sun and Toy had come to his house on the night of June 1 and again on the night of June 3—the nights specified in Wong Sun's confession.

In sum, the 27 grams of heroin surrendered by Yee at Yee's house on June 4 itself attested that narcotics had been transported to the house—narcotics that cannot be legally imported and for the manufacture of which no opium can be legally imported. Wong Sun's confession, shown to be reliable by several aspects of evidence aliunde, stated that the heroin had been brought by him and Toy. Moreover, in transporting the heroin, Wong Sun was necessarily


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/64

 in possession of the heroin for a substantial interval of time sufficient to bring into effect the statutory presumption of guilty knowledge derived from possession. Petitioner's reliance (Pet. Br. 28) on United States v. Landry, 257 F. 2d 425 (C.A. 7), is misplaced. Landry's admission was rejected, not for lack of corroboration, but for its failure to prove what it sought to prove, i.e., possession (id., 431). The government there adduced an admission by the defendant that he owned the narcotics that were found in the possession of another person (id., pp. 430–431). But the statute required possession rather than ownership in order to raise a prima facie presumption of a violation. Here that issue is not present—Wong Sun's confession admitted transportation of the heroin from Bill to Toy and to Yee and a fortiori the confession admitted the possession intrinsic in such transportation.

Every necessary element of Wong Sun's offense was thus proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the procedure approved in Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 156 (supra, p. 52)—"the independent evidence to bolster the confession itself and thereby prove the offense 'through' the statements of the accused".

Toy's confession, unlike that of Wong Sun, shows deliberate and ingenious effort on his part to withhold some of the facts. Like the accused in Opper v. United States, supra, 348 U.S. 84, Toy obviously sought to admit only what he thought could be proved


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/65

 against him by other evidence. But the statements in his confession were sufficiently corroborated to warrant consideration of his confession as evidence. What he failed to realize was that the combination of what he admitted, together with what appeared in evidence aliunde and what was properly inferable from the totality of facts, was sufficient to prove such participation by him in a narcotics transaction as to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Toy's confession admitted the following: He first met Wong Sun, known to him as "Sea Dog", about three months before June 5, 1959, at Marysville, California, during a Chinese holiday. Toy drove him back to San Francisco. Sometime during April or May of 1959, Wong Sun asked Toy to drive him to the home of Johnny Yee, at 11th and Balboa Streets (in San Francisco) first asking Toy to phone Johnny that they were coming. Wong Sun there delivered to Johnny a paper package of heroin and, upon Toy's request, "they" gave him some which he smoked. Wong Sun paid Toy $15 for driving him to Johnny's house. Toy drove Wong Sun to Johnny's house "about 5 times altogether," each time receiving $10 or $15 and enough heroin for 3 or 4 cigarettes.

The confession indicates that the last time Toy drove Wong Sun to Yee's house was on June 2. The specific language is "last Tuesday, May 26, 1959", but "last Tuesday", whether viewed from June 5, a Friday, or June 9, a Tuesday (whichever was the date of the confession), could only have been June 2, according to the 1959 calendar. What apparently occurred when the statement was made was a too hasty


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/66

 glance at the calendar for the date—the particular date could be confused, whereas "last Tuesday" was not likely to be confused with a Tuesday 10 or 14 days in the past. Moreover, the confession continues with immediate reference to "Wednesday night, June 3", when Toy phoned Johnny that he didn't “have anything” and was coming out "pretty soon". When he arrived, Johnny gave him—"just out of friendship"—a paper of heroin sufficient for 5 or 6 cigarettes, without any money given or asked. "He has given me heroin like this quite a few tines. I don't remember how many times".

Toy had "known Hom Wei [the original informer] about 2 or 3 years but I have never dealt in narcotics with him. * * * The only connection I have now is Johnny Yee."

2. This confession was corroborated in numerous respects by substantial evidence. As in the case of Wong Sun's confession, when Toy spoke of delivery of heroin at Yee's house he was not spinning a fantasy—the testimony of Agent Nickoloff that Yee had 27 grams of heroin at his house on the morning of June 4, and the presentation of the heroin in court provided firm substantiation for this critical aspect of Toy's story. We recognize that the literal language of Toy's confession does not embody an outright statement that heroin was delivered on the particular Tuesday night. The statement is only that Toy drove Wong Sun to Yee's house on that night, but the phrasing, in its context as the account


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/67

 of the last of a series of visits to Yee's house, shows that this was another instance of delivery of heroin. The statement is preceded by the sentence, "Each time [I have driven Wong Sun to Yee's] Wong Sun gave me $10 or $15 for doing it and also, he gave me a little heroin—enough to put in 3 or 4 cigarettes". Moreover, the confession is specific that, on the first of this series of well-paid trips to Yee's house, heroin was delivered to Yee. The clear effect is that heroin was delivered at Yee's house on Tuesday night, and the supporting evidence of the federal agent attests that there was heroin at Yee's house on Thursday morning.

Various other elements of the confession were corroborated. Toy admitted a series of visits to Yee's house. It was reasonable to conclude that this admission was true in the light of Toy's very detailed familiarity with the house—as disclosed in the testimony of Agent Nickoloff as to what was said when Toy sought, on June 4, to divert the officers to Yee as the seller of narcotics.

The statement in Toy's confession specifically placing him at Yee's house on the night of June 3 was further substantiated in Agent Nickoloff's testimony that Toy admitted to him on June 4 that he had been at Yee's house the night before. Toy also stated, in his confession, that Yee gave him heroin out of friendship. The aspect of friendship was supported in Yee's testimony at the trial. He said that he had known Toy since 1951 or 1952 and that Toy and


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/68

 wife and children had been present at Yee's housewarming party (R. 20–21).

Accordingly, the confession was properly considered by the trial judge as substantiated. Despite Toy's obvious effort to exculpate himself, his cleverness in this respect, as in the case of Opper v. United States, supra, 348 U.S. 84, fell short of success. For Toy in his admissions, while seeking to paint Wong Sun as the seller and transporter of the heroin to Yee's house, admitted accepting enough heroin on June 1 for 3 or 4 cigarettes, and a bindle of heroin on June 3 "enough for 5 or 6 cigaretscigarettes [sic]", to say nothing of Toy's aiding and abetting of Wong Sun in the transportation See 18 U.S.C. 2. Toy thus admitted possession of part of the heroin on June 1 and therefore was subject to the statutory presumption of guilty knowledge arising from possession of narcotics. The evidence of the amount of heroin at Yee's house on June 4 clearly corroborated Toy's admission of the availability of heroin for delivery to him at Yee's house on or about June 1.

The trial judge was not required to believe the entirety of either Toy's confession or that of Wong Sun. In Opper v. United States, supra, 348 U.S. 84,


text:
Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/69

 the admission of a payment to a government official was accepted as true but Opper's statement that this payment was only a loan was not required to be accepted. So, here, the trial judge could consistently find that, on or about June 1, Wong Sun had, at the least, transported heroin from his source "Bill", and that Toy had, at the least, possessed in Yee's house heroin, the transportation of which he had aided. This much of the confessions was sufficient proof of guilt, and (as we have pointed out) the confessions were adequately corroborated by the introduction in evidence of the 27 grams of heroin, and by the testimony of the officers and of Yee.

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the judgment below should be affirmed.

March 1962.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/363

Rh Corresp. London, 1870, vol. i.; Correspondance qui dévoile la Trahison du Senateur Blount (copy in Brit. Mus., cf. Appleton's Encycl. Amer. Biog. under ‘Blount, William’); Private Diary of Sir Robert Thomas Wilson, London, 1861, vol. i. and Appendix to vol. ii.; Amended Return of Diplomatic Pensions in House of Commons Paper 428, 1839; Ann. Reg. 1836, p. 209; H. B. McCall's Some Old Families, 1890, and Dalzel's Hist. Univ. Edinb. 1862; Despatches, under countries and dates, in Foreign Office Papers in Public Record Office, London.]

LISTON, ROBERT (1794–1847), surgeon, born on 28 Oct. 1794 in the manse of Ecclesmachan, Linlithgowshire, was eldest child of Henry Liston [q. v.], the minister of the parish. Liston spent a short time at a school in Abercorn, but was chiefly educated by his father. In 1808 he entered the university of Edinburgh, and in his second session obtained a prize for Latin prose composition. In 1810 he became assistant to Dr. John Barclay (1758–1826) [q. v.], a well-known extra-academical lecturer upon anatomy and physiology. Liston continued with Barclay until 1815, acting during the latter part of the time as his senior assistant and prosecutor. Dr. Barclay was an enthusiastic teacher, and from him Liston derived his love for anatomy. In 1814 he became ‘surgeon's clerk,’ or, as it is now called, ‘house-surgeon,’ at the Royal Infirmary, first to George Bell and afterwards to Dr. Gillespie; he held the office for two years.

He came to London in 1816, and put himself under Sir William Blizard and Mr. Thomas Blizard at the London Hospital. In the same year he was admitted a member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and began to attend Abernethy's lectures at St. Bartholomew's Hospital. He afterwards returned to Edinburgh, where he taught anatomy in conjunction with Syme. In 1818 he took the fellowship of the Edinburgh College of Surgeons after reading a thesis upon ‘Strictures of the Urethra and some of their Consequences.’

He worked in Edinburgh from 1818 to 1828, gaining a great reputation as a teacher of anatomy and as an operating surgeon. During the whole of this period he was constantly engaged in quarrels on professional subjects with the authorities of the Royal Infirmary, which culminated in 1822 in his expulsion from that institution. In 1827, however, he was appointed one of the surgeons to the Royal Infirmary, apparently by the exercise of private influence, and in the following year he was made the operating surgeon. He failed to be selected professor of clinical surgery in 1833 in succession to Russell, when Syme, his younger rival and former colleague, was chosen to fill the post, and this failure probably determined the rest of his career.

In 1834 Liston acceded to the invitation of the newly founded hospital attached to the London University to become one of its surgeons. He accordingly left Edinburgh and came to London, where in 1835 he also accepted the office of professor of clinical surgery in the university of London (University College). On the death of Sir Anthony Carlisle in 1840 Liston became a member of the council of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and in 1846 he was appointed to the board of examiners. On 13 May 1841 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society. He died of aneurism of the arch of the aorta on 7 Dec. 1847, at his house in Clifford Street (subsequently occupied by Sir William Bowman), in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and was buried in Highgate cemetery.

Liston's claim to remembrance is based upon the marvellous dexterity with which he used the surgeon's knife, and upon the profound knowledge of anatomy which enabled him to operate successfully in cases from which other surgeons shrank. Living at a time immediately antecedent to the introduction of anæsthetics, he appears to have attained to a dexterity in the use of cutting instruments which had probably never been equalled, and which is unlikely to be surpassed. When chloroform was unknown it was of the utmost importance that surgical operations should be performed as rapidly as possible. Of Liston it is told that when he amputated the gleam of his knife was followed so instantaneously by the sound of sawing as to make the two actions appear almost simultaneous, and yet he perfected the method of amputating by flaps. At the same time his physical strength was so great that he could amputate through a thigh with only the single assistant who held the limb. He excelled too in cutting for stone, but his name is perhaps best known to the present generation of surgeons in connection with the ‘Liston splint,’ still used in the treatment of dislocation of the thigh.

Liston was not a scientific surgeon, neither was he a good speaker, nor was he very clear as a writer. His manner towards his inferiors was often unnecessarily rough, and many stories are told of his rudeness and of the retorts to which he thereby laid himself open. He had many sterling qualities, however, and was devoted to outdoor sports in general, and to yachting in particular.

A bust of Liston, executed in 1850 by Thomas Campbell, exists in the anatomical


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Swabia

SWA'BIA, or SUABIA (Ger. Schwaben, Lat. Suevia). A mediæval duchy in the southwest of Germany. It took its name from the Suevi, by which the Germanic people of the ../Alemanni/ (q.v.), who occupied Southwestern Germany in the third century, were also known. The name Suevia alternates with that of Alemannia as the designation of the country in the early part of the Middle Ages, but the former finally prevailed. The region occupied by the Alemanni embraced Western Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, Alsace, and a great part of Switzerland. The bulk of the nation was subjected by the Franks at the close of the fifth century. As part of the Frankish realm, Alemannia was governed by native dukes, but the duchy was abolished before the dissolution of the Frankish Empire. The country from which Alsace and part of the Alpine territories had been detached, and which now came to be known as Swabia, was then placed under the rule of counts and nuntii

cameræ, and for a time it was nearly independent.

In 919 Swabia was constituted one of the great duchies of the German Kingdom. It comprised the region between the Rhine and the Lech and part of Switzerland. The office of duke was frequently kept in the royal family. In 1079 the duchy passed to the House of Hohenstaufen, being bestowed by the Emperor Henry IV. upon Frederick of Staufen. Under the rule of this house, which occupied the Imperial throne of Germany from 1138 to 1254, Swabia was the most wealthy and powerful of the German duchies. In 1096 Frederick of Staufen was compelled to give up to Berthold of Zähringen the Breisgau and the Imperial bailiffship in Zurich. On the extinction of the Hohenstaufen dynasty in 1268 disintegration took place and the ducal vassals (cities, prelates, counts, etc.) claimed independence except for their allegiance to the emperors. The Count of Württemberg occupied the leading place among the petty rulers. The numerous lesser lords were for the most part obliged to accept the overlordship of the House of Zähringen or of Austria. The cities, of which many had become wealthy and powerful, were striving for local independence. In 1376 some of them formed the first Swabian League, which extended beyond the bounds of Swabia. In 1405 Württemberg, Baden, and seventeen cities joined together in the League of Marbach. The two Leagues were of little importance as political powers, but they paved the way for the Great Swabian League, formed in 1488, which under the leadership of the Count of Württemberg exercised administrative and judicial authority over the whole country. During this long period of strife a considerable portion of old Swabia had passed into the power of Bavaria. In 1512 Swabia became one of the ten circles into which Germany was divided for administrative purposes by Maximilian I. The dissolution of the Great Swabian League took place in 1533. Among the many city commonwealths which arose in Swabia were Augsburg, Ulm, and Constance. The southwestern Government District of Bavaria bears the name of Swabia (or Swabia and Newburg). Its capital is Augsburg. The best general history is Stälin, Geschichte Württembergs (Gotha, 1882-87).


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/364

Rh museum of University College, London, a replica of which was placed in the board room of the Royal Infirmary; and there are two pictures of him in the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, one left to the college by Sir William Fergusson, the other by Clarkson Stanfield, representing Liston as a young man in a yachting dress.

Liston's chief works are: 1. ‘The Elements of Surgery,’ in three parts, published in Edinburgh and London in 1831 and 1832, of which a second edition in one volume was published in 1840. 2. ‘Practical Surgery,’ published in London, 1837; 2nd edit. 1838; 3rd edit. 1840; 4th edit. 1846. He wrote many pamphlets and reports of cases which are scattered about in the medical periodicals of his time.

 LITCHFIELD. [See also .]

LITCHFIELD, HARRIETT (1777–1854), actress, is said to have been born 4 May 1777. Her father, John Silvester Hay, only son of the vicar of Maldon in Essex, was surgeon of the Nassau, East Indiaman, and afterwards head surgeon of the Royal Hospital, Calcutta, where he is stated to have died in his thirty-seventh year, leaving his daughter aged about nine. He may be identical with the ‘Mr. John Hay, proprietor and printer of the “Calcutta Gazette,”’ and proprietor and manager of the Calcutta theatre, who died at Fort William in April 1787 (Gent. Mag. 1787, pt. ii. p. 1024). Miss Hay, sometimes called Miss Silvester, made her first appearance at Richmond in the summer of 1792, as Julia in the ‘Surrender of Calais.’ Encouraged by the applause of Mrs. Jordan, who was one of a pleased audience, she played three or four other characters. Early in 1793 she acted in Scotland, receiving, it is said, after her return a letter from Burns inviting her in the name of the citizens of Dumfries to revisit that town. During an unsatisfactory engagement at Liverpool under Aikin she played two parts, Sophia in the ‘Road to Ruin,’ and Edward in ‘Every one has his fault.’ In 1794 she married John Litchfield (d. 1858), of the privy council office, ‘a gentleman well known and admired in the literary world, and much esteemed as a private character’ (, Dramatic Mirror); he was author of some prologues and epilogues. She retired from the stage upon her marriage, but for a short time only. For the benefit of Mrs. Davenport, presumably May 1796, she appeared at Covent Garden as Edward. At the reopening of Covent Garden, 20 Sept. 1797, she played Marianne in the ‘Dramatist,’ this being announced as her first appearance in that character and fourth on this stage. Catalina in the ‘Castle of Andalusia,’ Lady Anne in ‘Richard III,’ Dimity in ‘Three Weeks after Marriage,’ Ismene in ‘Merope,’ Irene in ‘Barbarossa,’ Ascanio in ‘Disinterested Love’ (an alteration of Massinger's ‘Bashful Lover’), Moggy in the ‘Highland Reel,’ Betty Blackberry in the ‘Farmer,’ and the Marchioness in the ‘Child of Nature,’ were played during the season. At Covent Garden she remained, with the exception of the season of 1799–1800, when she played tragic characters in Birmingham, until 1806, the more prominent parts first assigned her being Miss Vortex in ‘A Cure for the Heartache’ and Emilia in ‘Othello.’ On 5 Dec. 1800, to the Macbeth of Cooke, she played Lady Macbeth, making a success which established her as a judicious actress. She also enacted Mrs. Haller in the ‘Stranger,’ Queen Elizabeth in ‘Essex,’ Statira, Mrs. Beverley in the ‘Gamester,’ Mrs. Oakley, Aspasia, Constance in Dr. Valpy's alteration of ‘King John’ (for her benefit at Covent Garden, 20 May 1803), Roxana, Andromache, Lady Randolph, Alicia in ‘Jane Shore,’ Merope, the Queen in ‘Richard III,’ Millwood in ‘George Barnwell,’ Lady Rodolpha in the ‘Man of the World,’ in all of which she played respectably. Few original characters of importance were assigned her, the most conspicuous being Ottilia in ‘Monk’ Lewis's ‘Alfonso, King of Castile,’ 15 Jan. 1802, and Mrs. Ferment in Morton's ‘School of Reform,’ 15 Jan. 1803. Having quarrelled with the Covent Garden management, she went to the Haymarket as Widow Brady in the ‘Irish Widow.’ This was announced as her first appearance there for five years. She had first been seen there as Julia in the ‘Surrender of Calais,’ 14 July 1801. The Queen in ‘Hamlet,’ Lady Caroline in ‘John Bull,’ Susan in ‘Follies of a Day’ (‘La folle journée’), Elvira in ‘Pizarro,’ Leonora in ‘Lovers' Quarrels,’ with some other parts, were played during the season of 1805–6, after which she disappeared. She played six nights at Bath, being her first appearance there, in May 1810, during which she enacted Lady Clermont in Dimond's ‘Adrian and Orilla,’ and was seen in a monodrame by ‘Monk’ Lewis (consisting of one scene, for Mrs. Litchfield), which had been acted by her for a single occasion at Covent Garden, 22 March 1803. On 8 Oct. 1812 she appeared for Terry's benefit at the Haymarket as Emilia to the Othello of Elliston. This was announced as her first appearance on the stage for six


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/384

Maitland who set out on 12 Oct. (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 62), arrived in Edinburgh on 3 Jan. from their unsuccessful mission (ib. p. 63). But already the death of the French king, on 4 Dec. 1560, had entirely altered the political outlook. So general became the desire for Mary's return that Maitland saw that it could not be resisted, and at once set himself to minimise its dangers. To himself, owing to his former relations with the queen regent, these were necessarily great, and he expressed to Cecil the fear that he would be undone, 'unless the queen may be made favourable to England' (6 Feb. 1560-1, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser., 1560-1, entry 967). Mary's letter to him of 29 June 1561 tended to allay his immediate anxieties, but her promise to judge him only by his 'zeal and faithfulness in her service 'was of doubtful import as to the future, and he was afraid that she would 'bide her time' (10 Aug. in, iii. 211-16). To prevent her proceeding to extremities, he wished to hold out to her the hope of securing Elizabeth's recognition as heir presumptive of England. His letters to Cecil of 9 Aug. (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser., 1561-2, p. 238), 10 Aug. (, iii. 211-16), and 16 Aug. (Appendix to ) have been interpreted as an encouragement to Elizabeth to prevent Mary's return, but they really indicate nothing more than his anxiety to prevent Elizabeth and Cecil from supposing that he had any motive for desiring it. He demonstrates, indeed, the folly of placing obstacles in the way of Mary's return unless Elizabeth had determined at all hazards to stop it, but probably he suspected that while Elizabeth wished the Scots to prevent it she would herself shrink from undertaking this responsibility. His aim therefore was, by a vivid picture of the perilous crisis in Scotland, which pointed to the overthrow of protestantism and a renewal of the league with France, to convince Elizabeth of the necessity of doing all that was possible to secure the goodwill both of Mary and the people of Scotland. In his double purpose he for a time succeeded. Mary's design for the establishment of Catholicism was deferred for several years, and Elizabeth so far followed Maitland's advice as to entirely change her attitude to Mary, and to enter into negotiations, real or feigned, for an alliance between the two kingdoms, based upon the recognition of Mary as heir presumptive.

Shortly after Mary's arrival in Scotland Maitland was, on 1 Sept. 1561, sent on an embassy to England, formally to announce her return to her kingdom, and her earnest desire for permanent friendship with Elizabeth (Mary, 1 Sept. in Illustrations, pp, 90-1, and, i. 103; Instructions in , ii. 72-4 ; and , i. 104). On his return he was chosen secretary (Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 165), and being entrusted with the management of Mary's foreign policy, at least as regards England, he directed his efforts towards a scheme for uniting the 'isles in friendship' by obtaining from Elizabeth the recognition of Mary as heir presumptive. His calculations were apparently based on the conviction that Elizabeth would never bear a child, for his ambition was that the recognition should be more than a dead letter. Moreover he either believed, or feigned to believe, that recognition as heir presumptive would content her, and that this once granted she would not endanger it by attempting a religious revolution, either in England or Scotland (Cecil, 8 June 1562, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser., 1562, entry 170). In Scotland one of his chief difficulties was Knox, whose purpose to establish a puritan theocracy it was necessary to thwart. Through Maitland's influence assent was refused to the 'Book of Discipline,' which he scornfully described as a 'devout imagination,' and he systematically burked all attempts of the puritan ministers to interfere in state matters, 'let thame bark and blaw alse loude as they list' (, ii. 419). No doubt he either misjudged Mary, or, as is more probable, merely made his own use of her professions of toleration; but the political situation was so critical that to stave off the perils attendant on her return was of the highest moment. This was done by enticing Elizabeth and Mary into the succession negotiations, and even although he might believe that nothing would result from them, their protraction was in itself of no small advantage.

On 26 May 1562 Maitland left for England to arrange for an interview between the two sovereigns (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 72), but the continuance of hostilities in France broke off the arrangement, and he returned on 12 July with the unwelcome tidings that the meeting had been postponed till the following year. The news that when Elizabeth in the following October was at the point of death only a single voice was raised in behalf of Mary was a still severer blow to Mary's hopes. Maitland was on 13 Feb. (ib. p. 76) despatched with instructions to demand recognition of her claims from the parliament (, i. 161-9;, ii. 188-92); but despairing of obtaining this, he while in London began negotiations with the Spanish minister for Mary's marriage to Don Carlos (Cal. State Papers, Spanish Ser., 1558-67, pp. 305-16 and passim, cf. Mary). Probably his chief reason for assenting to the marriage was dread of the consequences of thwarting Mary


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/385

Maitland in the prime object of her ambition; but he seems also to have been influenced by a desire to render secure her title to the English succession, and to have hoped that such arrangements would be made as would safeguard the interests of protestantism in Scotland. From London he passed into France, arriving at the French court on 11 April (Middlemore, 14 April, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser., 1563, entry 617). In accordance with his original instructions (, i. 164), he on l7 April offered to act as mediator between England and France (Cal State Papers, For. Ser., 1562, entry 636), but there is no reason to suppose that either he or Mary desired to assist Elizabeth. While ostensibly his mission was to guard the interests of Mary in France, its main object was to secure the support of the Cardinal of Lorraine to the marriage with Don Carlos. He arrived in Edinburgh on his return from his mission on 23 June (Randolph, 26 June, ib. entry 938), and spent three days in close conference with the queen. Towards the close of the year the hope of the success of the Spanish suit had almost vanished, but Maitland's services in connection with it were recognised by the gift of the abbacy of Haddington (Randolph, 3 Dec. ib. entry 1481).

Maitland was no more favourable than Mary to Elizabeth's suggestion that Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, should marry the Scottish queen. The likelihood is that he doubted Elizabeth's sincerity in making it, but all that he continued to urge was that before the marriage Mary must be formally recognised as heir-apparent. In this he was so persistent that Elizabeth complained to Melville that he 'did ring always her knell, talking of nothing but her succession' (16 Dec. 1564, ib. 1564-5, entry 866). Elizabeth's inability to come to a definite agreement became manifest at the Berwick conference in November 1564, and Maitland now gave his support to Darnley's suit for Mary's hand. As early as 24 Oct. Randolph reported that Lennox was 'well friended of Lethington, who is now thought will bear much with the Stewarts from the love he bears to Mary Fleming' (24 Oct. ib. entry 767). Henceforth his relations to Mary Fleming must be taken into account in judging his political conduct, not only as regards this but all other matters. It bound him more closely to the fortunes of the Queen of Scots. At the same time he had a sufficient political reason for supporting the Darnley marriage in the fact that it immeasurably strengthened Mary's claims on the English succession. In April Maitland was sent to inform Elizabeth of Mary's desire to marry Darnley (Instructions in, ii. 72–74), and he had also a commission to proceed afterwards to France to 'make the French king and that state allow of her choice' (Throckmorton, 11 May, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser., 1564-5, entry 1159), but on learning that Mary was already treating Darnley as her affianced husband he returned immediately to Scotland. Throckmorton states that he 'never saw him in so great perplexity nor passion, and would have little believed that for any matter he could have been so moved' (ib.) The deception practised upon himself, dread of a rupture with England, and doubt as to Mary's ultimate designs, probably in almost equal proportions, combined to produce his perturbation. Yet when he saw that she was determined to proceed at all hazards he made no attempt further to oppose her, and he kept aloof from the conspiracy of Moray and Argyll.

Although still retaining the office of secretary, Maitland was now practically superseded in the queen's confidence by Rizzio. On 2 June Randolph wrote that the latter 'now worketh all, and that Maitland had' both leave and time enough to make court to his mistress' (ib. entry 1221), and on 31 Oct. he expressed the opinion that Maitland, through his entanglement with Mary Fleming, would, 'wise as he is,' 'show himself a fool' (ib. entry 1638). But if he supposed that Maitland would submit to be superseded by Rizzio, and allow Mary to carry out her scheme of absolutism, he was mistaken. Although he masked his proceedings with admirable skill, it was probably chiefly he who, fathoming her real purposes, suggested the means of thwarting them by the removal of Rizzio. On 9 Feb. he wrote to Cecil that he saw no certain way 'unless they chop at the very root' (ib. 1566-8, entry 82 and he is mentioned by Randolph as one of those privy to the plot (6 March, ib. entry 162). In the 'History of James the Sext' (p. 6) he is represented as suggesting to Darnley that Rizzio, by his necromancy, had won the queen's affection, and Calderwood affirms that, failing at first to entice Morton to 'put hands' on Rizzio, he actually suggested to Rizzio to move the queen to 'alienate her countenance 'from Morton (History, ii. 3ll), M. Philippson ('La Participation de Lethington au meurtre de Riccio,' in Revue Historique, xli. 91-4) has printed certain letters of Maitland, written when he was in disgrace, implying approval of the murder, and if insufficient in themselves to demonstrate his direct connection with it, they are of some value as corroborative evidence. The probability, however, is that he contented himself with enticing others to engage in it and


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Sverdrup, Otto

SVERDRUP, (1855—). A Norwegian Arctic explorer, born at Haarstad Farm, District of Helgeland. He followed the sea at the age of seventeen, was subsequently in command of a merchant vessel, and in 1888 joined Nansen's expedition to Greenland. In 1893 he started with Nansen for the North Pole as commander of the Fram, which had been built under his supervision, and when Nansen, in 1895, proceeded north on dog sledges, Sverdrup took the ship to the Arctic Sea and in 1896 back to Norway. In 1898 he led another expedition in the Fram as far as Cape Sable, was caught in the ice for a year, and, after advancing into Jones's Sound in the summer of 1899, was again ice-bound for three years. Having explored the southwest and western shores of Ellesmere Land and discovered islands north of the Peary Archipelago, he reached Goodhaven, Greenland, in August, 1902, and returned to Norway in the autumn.


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Sverdrup, Johan

SVERDRUP, svĕr'drụp, (1816-92). A Norwegian politician, born at the Château of Jarisberg. He studied and practiced law, but from 1850, when he was elected to the Storthing, gave his entire attention to politics and became the leader of the radical peasant faction. As president of the Storthing since 1871, he violently fought against the royal prerogatives. He was called to preside over the Ministry in 1884, hut did not satisfy the radical portion of his adherents, and, yielding to the combined attacks of the Conservatives and the extreme Left, resigned in 1889.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/386

Maitland took no personal part in the arrangements. On the night of the murder he occupied rooms in the palace, along with several lords of the queen's party, but the same night was permitted by the conspirators to depart, along with the Earl of Atholl (, Memoirs, p. 149). Denounced by Darnley and hated and feared by Bothwell, who also coveted his lands, his life was for some time in serious danger, but the strong representations of Atholl and Moray, coupled with Mary's own partiality for him, prevented matters proceeding to extremities, and ultimately, in September, he was reconciled to Bothwell and restored to favour (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entries 723-6). Mary was desirous of again securing his invaluable services in her negotiations with England, but it cannot be doubted that his recall indicated, both on her part and the part of Bothwell, the contemplation of some scheme for getting rid of Darnley. As Darnley had imperilled Maitland's life and fortunes, it would probably not be hard to convince him of the advisability of such a step. Clearly he had no interest in saving Darnley. On 24 Oct. he wrote to Beaton that he saw between Mary and Darnley 'no agreement, nor appearance that they will agree well thereafter' (, ii. 72). The aim of this letter was probably to suggest the necessity of a divorce, should it be possible without 'prejudice to the young prince.' Mary, in her account of the Craigmillar conference, which was held in December to consider her relations with Darnley, practically affirmed that it was Maitland who first suggested the plot against Darnley's life. He was also mentioned by the subordinate agents of the murder as one of the five who immediately after the conference signed a band for putting forth 'the young fool and proud tyrant' by 'one way or other.' On 6 Jan. 1567 he married Mary Fleming, and shortly after his marriage he accompanied Bothwell to Whittinghame, when the latter proposed to Morton to undertake the murder. As Maitland had secured Morton's recall on a promise that means should be found to rid the queen of Darnley, it is impossible to suppose him ignorant of Bothwell's proposals to Morton, even if no weight is to be attached to the statement of Archibald Douglas (fl. 1568) [q. v.] that he was in communication with the queen in reference to the proposal (Morton's confession in Memorials, 317-32; Archibald Douglas to the Queen of Scots in  Hist. 6th ed. ii. 432]). Darnley's murder followed on 10 Feb.

Maitland accompanied the queen to Seton after the murder, and being in constant attendance on her was probably chiefly responsible for the tenor of her letters to Lennox and others. He prevented the deliverance of Elizabeth's letter to her on the morning of Bothwell's trial, on the plea that the queen was asleep, but the falsehood of the plea was almost immediately shown by the appearance of her and Maitland's wife at a window of the palace (Drury to Cecil, 15 April, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 1100; Drury, undated, ib. entry 1199). He did not sign the bond for the marriage to Bothwell, and was entirely averse to it, but he early saw that interference with Bothwell's purpose would be worse than useless. When Melville showed the queen a letter of Thomas Bishop in reference to Bothwell's intentions, Maitland privately informed him that he had done 'more honestly than wisely' (, Memoirs, p. 176). He was in the queen's train when she was intercepted by Bothwell, and was carried with her to Dunbar. According to his own account he would have been slain that night but for the queen's interference, and henceforth determined to escape to the lords at Stirling at the first opportunity (Drury, 6 May, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser., entry 1175). He, however, accompanied the queen from Dunbar to Edinburgh, was present at the marriage to Bothwell (Diurnal, p. 111), and remained at court on good terms with her, 'though hated by the duke' (Drury, May, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. entry 1244), until dread of his life from the latter's violence compelled him at last, on 6 June, to make his escape (Drury, 7 June, ib. entry 1275;, p. 178; Diurnal, p. 112). He went first to Callendar (ib.), and thence to the Earl of Atholl (, p. 178), with whom on the 14th he returned to Edinburgh and joined the lords (Diurnal, p. 113). Possibly he did so with the greatest reluctance, and, apart from considerations of personal safety, his main purpose seems to have been to save the queen from the ruinous consequences of her so-called marriage.

Mary, when lodged in the provost's house after Carberry, called Maitland to her window and remonstrated against the wrong done her in separating her from her husband. She proposed that they should be permitted to leave Scotland together in a ship to go where 'fortune might conduct them,' and Maitland seems to have thought the proposal feasible, provided they avoided France (Du Croc, 17 June,, ii. 811). At the same time he informed her that if she would abandon Bothwell all might yet be well. According to Morton's 'Declaration' Maitland was dining with Morton in Edinburgh on 19 June when word was


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Svendsen, Johan

SVEND'SEN, (1840—). A Norwegian violinist and composer, born at Christiania. He studied at the Leipzig Conservatory, toured extensively, later was appointed

Concertmeister of the Leipzig ‘Euterpe’ concerts, and from 1872 to 1877 was conductor of the Christiania Musical Association. Afterwards he became Court conductor at Copenhagen, and in 1896 was appointed conductor of the Royal Theatre. His works include string quartets and quintets; symphony in D; violin concerto in A; overture to Björnson's drama Sigurd Slembe; Carnaval à Paris, for the orchestra; Coronation March (for Oscar II.); Wedding Cantata, for chorus and orchestra; Carnaval des artistes norvegiens; Norwegian rhapsodies for the orchestra; overture to Romeo and Juliet; Scandinavian airs for string quartet; and Romance in G, for the violin and orchestra.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/373

Rh 28 April 1609 (ib. vol. ii. pt. iii. p. 286). In 1608 he entered the Inner Temple, and was called to the bar in 1617 (Inner Temple Students, ed. Cooke, 1547–1660, p. 185). He became a profound lawyer, and was especially well versed in records, which he studied in company with John Selden. On his father's death in 1621 Littleton was appointed to succeed him as chief justice of North Wales, and was made a bencher of his inn in 1629. He was returned M.P. for both Leominster and Carnarvon in 1625, when he elected to serve for the former borough, being again chosen by the same constituency in 1625–6 and 1627–8. In parliament he took an active part with the opposition in the proceedings against the Duke of Buckingham, arguing that common fame was a sufficient ground for the house to act upon. When parliament met again in March 1628, Littleton was placed in the chair of the committee of grievances, and on 3 April presented to the house their report, upon which was founded the Petition of Right. In the subsequent conferences with the lords he ably enforced the resolutions, and replied to the objections of the crown officers with temper and point. He was designated by the lord president in reporting the arguments as a ‘grave and learned lawyer.’ In the debate on the king's answer to the Remonstrance, on 6 May 1628, Littleton declared, in reply to a question by Edward Alford, that by the confirmation of the statutes without explanation the subject would be in a worse condition than before. When the goods of John Rolle, a member of the house, had been seized for his refusal to pay tonnage and poundage, and a serious breach of parliamentary privilege had been thereby committed, Littleton, on 22 Jan. 1629, moved that ‘the parties be sent for that violated the liberties.’

On the dissolution of this parliament in March 1629, several members were imprisoned for holding down the speaker in the chair while the protestation against tonnage and poundage was passed. On their appeal to the court of king's bench Littleton, who had taken no part in the proceedings, appeared for Selden, who was one of those arrested, and learnedly contended for his right to be discharged on bail (, State Trials, iii. 85, 252). Though a strenuous advocate of the liberty of the subject, he had never shown himself a violent partisan, while his language was always moderate and courteous. The king saw the benefits which would result from his services, and accordingly recommended him as recorder of London, to which office he was elected on 7 Dec. 1631. About the same time he was appointed counsel to the university of Oxford, and in the autumn of 1632 he became reader to the Inner Temple (, Origines, p. 168). His popularity in London obtained for him on this occasion a present from the aldermen of 100l., two hogsheads of claret, and a pipe of canary. On 17 Oct. 1634 he was made solicitor-general, and was knighted on 6 June 1635 (, Book of Knights, p. 193). He principally distinguished himself by his elaborate argument against John Hampden in the case of ship-money; his speech occupied three days (, iii. 923). On 27 Jan. 1640 he became chief justice of the common pleas; he received the degree of serjeant nine days before (, Fœdera, fol., xx. 380). His ambition, as he told Hyde, was now satisfied. On 20 May following he was appointed a member of the select committee of the council for ship-money (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1640, p. 185). After the flight of Finch the great seal was delivered to Littleton (who had, by the recommendation of Lord Strafford, been previously admitted into the privy council), with the title of lord keeper, on 18 Jan. 1641, and a month later he was created Lord Littleton of Munslow. This advance did not add to his reputation or his personal comfort. In the common pleas he had presided with great ability; in the chancery he was an indifferent judge. At the council and in parliament he felt himself out of his element, and was so disturbed with the unhappy state of the king's affairs that he fell into a serious illness, and was absent from his place for some months.

One of his first duties was to express the thanks of the lords and commons to the king for passing the act for triennial parliaments. There followed the impeachment and attainder of his friend the Earl of Strafford, in behalf of whom he was prevented from pleading by his illness, the Earl of Arundel acting for him as speaker in the House of Lords (, ii. 956). On 18 May 1641 he was placed at the head of a commission to execute the office of lord high treasurer. On his resuming his seat he had the difficult duty of presiding during all the violent measures that occupied the house for the remainder of that year and the beginning of the next. When, on 16 Aug., the parliamentary commissioners were about to proceed to Edinburgh nominally to treat with the Scottish parliament, Littleton was asked to pass their commission under the great seal, but he demurred in the absence of directions from the king. On 9 Sept. 1641 he voted against the refusal of the lords to communicate their resolution on divine service to the commons. He firmly refused to put the great seal to the proclamation for arrest of the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/387

Maitland brought to them that Bothwell's servants had gone to the castle to fetch his effects, and he was present at the opening of the silver casket on the 21st (, Casket Letters, pp. 113-15). It was also on the 21st that he informed Cecil that, having only 'staid in company with the Earl Bothwell at court' from 'reverence and affection' to the queen his mistress, fear of his life and the hazard of his reputation had now induced him to join 'the best part of the nobility' in freeing her from Bothwell's power. So far his statement is perfectly credible; but a subsequent reference to the 'honour of the country, almost lost by that shameful murder' (Letter to Cecil, 1 July, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 1381), is a sufficiently striking example of diplomatic hypocrisy. After the flight of Bothwell, Maitland seems to have secretly devoted himself to the queen's interests. In token of his devotion he is said to have sent her a small oval ornament of gold, enamelled with Æsop's fable of the mouse delivering the lion caught in the net (, ii. 871;, p. 59). At the opening of the parliament in December he delivered a speech well fitted to allay animosities and to reconcile all parties to the rule of the regent. According to Sir James Melville, it was his conviction that the queen's interests would be best served by joining 'all the country together in quietness (Memoirs, p. 190). The statement of Calderwood that he was one of 'the chief plotters and devisers' of Mary's deliverance from Lochleven (ii. 404) is unsupported by evidence, and is essentially improbable. On the morning of Langside, Mary sent a private message to him asking his mediation in arranging terms with the regent {Memoirs, p. 200), but her purpose was frustrated by the precipitate action of the Hamiltons in forcing a battle.

Maitland had persistently endeavoured, so far as prudence would permit, to shield Mary, and, although one of the commissioners of the York conference, wished to avoid proceeding to extremities against her. He had a personal interest in preventing any thorough inquiry into the murder of Darnley, and the fact that Mary did not scruple to name him as one of its principal contrivers doubtless quickened his anxiety to effect a compromise. By means of Sir Robert Melville he therefore entered into private communication with Mary, to whom he sent a copy of the letters which the Scottish commissioners intended to produce 'in proof of the murder.' He added an assurance of his entire devotion to her service, and requested information as to the best course to pursue on her behalf (examination of the Bishop of Ross in, p. 52). Mary accepted his proffered assistance, asking him to use his influence both with Moray and Norfolk—the principal English commissioner—to stay the accusations; and advising him to consult further with her representative, John Leslie [q. v.], bishop of Ross. With Mary's consent Maitland therefore revived a scheme for her marriage to Norfolk. All would probably have been well but for Elizabeth. Norfolk was willing, Mary did not object, Moray might have been won over; but the knowledge that such a scheme was afoot was sufficient to determine Elizabeth to compel the Scottish commissioners to utter all they could to the 'queen's dishonour.' When Moray, partly by threats, partly by stratagem, was induced finally to give in his accusation, Maitland 'rounded' in his ear 'that he had shamed himself and put his life in peril,' (, Memoirs, p. 211). After the close of the conferences Maitland endeavoured again to revive the Norfolk marriage scheme, and with this view an attempt was made in July 1569 to gain the consent of the Perth convention to the queen's divorce from Bothwell. On its failure Maitland severed himself from the party of the regent, and retired to Atholl. Being, however, enticed to attend a meeting of the council at Stirling on 3 Sept., he had hardly taken his seat before Captain Thomas Crawford [q. v.] entered the chamber and, falling down on his knees, desired that justice should be done on Maitland and Sir James Balfour for their share in Darnley's murder (Diurnal, p. 147). Although Maitland offered to find caution in any sum the regent might fix, he was confined in the castle of Stirling. Thence he was sent to Edinburgh for trial, but while confined there in a private house, he was, on a pretended warrant from the rejgent, removed by Kirkcaldy to the castle. Kirkcaldy subsequently promised to bring him into court on the day fixed for his trial, 21 Nov.; but on account of the 'great convention of the people' in his support the trial was not proceeded with (ib. pp. 151-2;, ii. 506). At a meeting of the nobles held on the evening of the regent's funeral, 14 Feb. 1570, Maitland 'was purged of privitie to the murder of the king or regent,' and set at liberty {Diurnal, p. 158;, ii. 526).

After the death of the regent Maitland exerted himself to reconcile the two factions, but his intentions were frustrated by the advance of the English army into Scotland. After the election of Lennox to the regency, 17 July, he retired into Atholl, and henceforth became the acknowledged head


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/374

Rh five members in January 1642, and entreated to be allowed to resign (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1641–3, p. 252). His conduct, while it displeased the king, was so satisfactory to the commons that on their nomination of lieutenants for the several counties they placed him at the head of his native shire (, ii. 1085). In March 1642 the king retired to York in deep disgust at what he considered Littleton's want of devotion. He was particularly offended with Littleton's vote in favour of the ordinance for the militia, and his arguments in support of its legality (, Memorials, p. 59). Littleton, however, explained to Hyde that he had given this vote and others, which he knew would be obnoxious to the king, for the purpose of disarming the rising distrust of the commons, and of preventing their proposed intention of taking the seal from him. He thereupon planned with Hyde that he would take advantage of the customary recess of the house between Saturday and Monday morning to send the great seal to the king, and himself to follow after. On 23 May Littleton's departure from London was reported to the lords, who immediately ordered him to be taken into custody; but at the end of the third day after his flight he kissed the king's hand at York (, History, 1849, ii. 494–504). In a letter to the lords he pleaded the king's commands as an excuse for his departure, and enclosed an affidavit showing his inability from illness to travel to Westminster as ordered. At the same time he ‘took the boldness’ to inform the lords that he had the king's express commands upon his allegiance not to depart from him. It was not until a year afterwards that the parliament voted that if he did not return with the seal within fourteen days he should lose his place, and the two houses passed an ordinance for a new seal on 10 Nov. 1643.

Through the good offices of Hyde the king ultimately became reconciled to Littleton, although he did not for some time entrust him with the actual custody of the seal. On 31 Jan. 1643 Littleton received, with other of Charles's adherents, the degree of D.C.L. from the university of Oxford; in March he was again appointed first commissioner of the treasury (Fourth Report Pub. Rec., Appendix, ii. 187); and on 21 May 1644 he was entrusted with a military commission to raise a regiment of foot-soldiers, consisting of gentlemen of the inns of court and chancery, and others. Of this regiment, the ranks of which were soon filled, he acted as colonel.

Littleton died at Oxford on 27 Aug. 1645, and was buried in Christ Church Cathedral, where his daughter erected a monument to his memory. By his first wife, Anne, daughter of John Lyttelton of Frankley, Worcestershire, he had a son and two daughters, who all died in infancy. His second wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir William Jones, judge of the king's bench, and widow of Sir George Calverley of Cheshire, brought him an only daughter, Anne, who was married to her cousin, Sir Thomas Littleton, bart., of Stoke St. Milborough, Shropshire.

Clarendon (Hist. ii. 491) describes Littleton as a ‘handsome and proper man,’ of a very graceful presence, and ‘notorious for courage, which in his youth he had manifested with his sword.’ Both friends and enemies readily acknowledge that he was a learned lawyer, powerful advocate, and an excellent judge; that he was incorruptible and moderate; and that in private life he was highly esteemed. But he was not made for power; he was weak and wavering, and by endeavouring to be the friend of all parties he retained the confidence of none. He had, however, faithful friends on both sides who did not doubt his integrity. Hyde, who knew him well, was his friend to the last. Whitelocke, of the parliament side, always speaks kindly of him, and when in 1645 the commons seized his books and manuscripts, Whitelocke induced them to bestow them on him, with the intention, he asserts, of restoring them to the owner or his family when ‘God gave them a happy accommodation’ (Memorials, p. 172).

A volume of reports in the common pleas and exchequer from 2 to 7 Charles I was published with his name in 1683, but they are probably not of his composition. His portrait has been engraved from a portrait by Vandyck; a half-length original by an unknown artist is in the possession of the Earl of Home.

LITTLETON, EDWARD (fl. 1694), agent for the island of Barbadoes, born in 1626, was son of Sir Adam Littleton, bart., of Stoke St. Milborough, Shropshire, by Ethelreda, daughter and coheiress of Thomas Poyntz of North Ockendon, Essex. After attending Westminster School he became a commoner of St. Mary Hall, Oxford, in 1641, graduated B.A. in 1644, and in 1647 was elected fellow of All Souls. Having submitted to the authority of the parliamentary


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/375

Rh visitors, he proceeded M.A. in 1648, and in 1656 was chosen senior proctor of the university (, Fasti Oxon. ed. Bliss, ii. 70, 108, 192). He incorporated at Cambridge in 1657. About 1664 he left Oxford, on being called to the bar at Lincoln's Inn. In 1666 he went to Barbadoes as secretary to William, lord Willoughby of Parham, and the king's attorney for that island. Three years later he married a wealthy lady there, and by 1673 owned six hundred acres (Cal. State Papers, America, 1669–74, p. 497). In November 1672 he was placed on a committee to consider and report on the acts of the country (ib. p. 433), and in 1674 was twice elected to a seat in the assembly for St. James's parish (ib. pp. 546, 626). He acted as judge in the island from 1670 till 1683, and returned to London, where he filled the office of agent for Barbadoes.

Littleton wrote: 1. ‘De Juventute oratio,’ 4to, London, 1664 (another edit. 1689), delivered when he was rhetoric reader of the university. 2. ‘The Groans of the Plantations; or a true Account of their … Sufferings by the heavy Impositions upon Sugar and other Hardships,’ &c., 4to, London, 1689. 3. ‘Observations upon the Warre of Hungary,’ 4to, London, 1689. 4. ‘The Management of the Present War against France consider'd,’ 4to, London, 1690. 5. ‘The true Causes of the Scarcity of Money, with the proper Remedies for it,’ 4to, London, 1690 (reprinted in 1692). 6. ‘A Project of a Descent upon France,’ 4to, London, 1691. 7. ‘A Proposal of some ways for raising of Money,’ 4to, London, 1691. 8. ‘A Proposal for Maintaining and Repairing the Highways,’ 4to, London, 1692. 9. ‘The Descent upon France further recommended,’ 4to, London, 1694. Several of his tracts were published anonymously.

LITTLETON, EDWARD, LL.D. (d. 1733), divine and poet, was educated upon the royal foundation at Eton under Dr. Snape. In 1716 he was elected to a scholarship at King's College, Cambridge, where he graduated B.A. in 1720, M.A. in 1724, and LL.D. comitiis regiis in 1728 (Graduati Cantabr. 1823, p. 295). While an undergraduate he composed a humorous poem entitled ‘A Letter from Cambridge to Master Henry Archer, a young gentleman at Eton School.’ This and his more celebrated poem ‘On a Spider’ are correctly printed in Dodsley's ‘Collection of Poems,’ edited by Isaac Reed (1782, vi. 316, 324). He also wrote a pastoral elegy on the death of Ralph Banks, a scholar of King's College, but only a few fragments have been preserved. In 1720 Littleton was appointed an assistant-master at Eton. In 1726 he was elected a fellow of the college, and presented to the vicarage of Mapledurham, Oxfordshire. On 30 Jan. 1730 he preached a sermon before the House of Commons at St. Margaret's, Westminster, and on 9 June 1730 was appointed one of the king's chaplains. He died on 16 Nov. 1733, and was buried in his church at Mapledurhan. He married Frances, daughter of Barnham Goode, under-master of Eton. Her second husband was Dr. John Burton (1696–1771) [q. v.], Littleton's successor in the living at Mapledurham.

Two volumes of his ‘Sermons upon several Practical Subjects,’ dedicated to the Queen Caroline, were published by subscription in 1735, 8vo, for the benefit of his widow and his three children. A third edition, with a memoir of the author by Dr. Thomas Morell [q. v.], appeared in 1749, 12mo.

LITTLETON, EDWARD JOHN, first (1791–1863), born on 18 March 1791, was the only son of Moreton Walhouse of Hatherton in the parish of Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, by his wife, Anne Craycroft, daughter of A. Portal. He entered Rugby School at midsummer 1806, and matriculated at Brasenose College, Oxford, on 27 Jan. 1809, and was created D.C.L. on 18 June 1817. He was admitted a student of Lincoln's Inn on 17 Nov. 1810, but took his name off the books of that society on 6 Nov. 1812. In compliance with the will of his grand-uncle, Sir Edward Littleton, bart. (a lineal descendant of Sir Thomas Littleton, K.B., author of the ‘Treatise of Tenures’), he assumed the surname of Littleton in lieu of Walhouse on 23 July 1812 (London Gazette, 1812, pt. ii. p. 1365), and on attaining the age of twenty-four succeeded to the family estates in Worcestershire and Staffordshire. At a by-election in June 1812, occasioned by his grand-uncle's death in the previous month, he was returned to the House of Commons for Staffordshire, and continued to represent that constituency until the dissolution in December 1832. Littleton appears to have spoken for the first time in the house on 19 Feb. 1816 during the debate upon the address, when he supported the government and their conduct of the war (Parl. Debates, 1st ser. xxxii. 712–13). On 2 June 1817 he seconded the nomination