text:
Page:Sons and Lovers, 1913, Lawrence.djvu/59

Rh And the money was just sufficient. She had seventeen shillings a week from clubs, and every Friday Barker and the other butty put by a portion of the stall’s profits for Morel’s wife. And the neighbours made broths, and gave eggs, and such invalids’ trifles. If they had not helped her so generously in those times, Mrs. Morel would never have pulled through, without incurring debts that would have dragged her down.

The weeks passed. Morel, almost against hope, grew better. He had a fine constitution, so that, once on the mend, he went straight forward to recovery. Soon he was pottering about downstairs. During his illness his wife had spoilt him a little. Now he wanted her to continue. He often put his hand to his head, pulled down the corners of his mouth, and shammed pains he did not feel. But there was no deceiving her. At first she merely smiled to herself. Then she scolded him sharply.

“Goodness, man, don’t be so lachrymose.”

That wounded him slightly, but still he continued to feign sickness.

“I wouldn’t be such a mardy baby,” said his wife shortly.

Then he was indignant, and cursed under his breath, like a boy. He was forced to resume a normal tone, and to cease to whine.

Nevertheless, there was a state of peace in the house for some time. Mrs. Morel was more tolerant of him, and he, depending on her almost like a child, was rather happy. Neither knew that she was more tolerant because she loved him less. Up till this time, in spite of all, he had been her husband and her man. She had felt that, more or less, what he did to himself he did to her. Her living depended on him. There were many, many stages in the ebbing of her love for him, but it was always ebbing.

Now, with the birth of this third baby, her self no longer set towards him, helplessly, but was like a tide that scarcely rose, standing off from him. After this she scarcely desired him. And, standing more aloof from him, not feeling him so much part of herself, but merely part of her circumstances, she did not mind so much what he did, could leave him alone.

There was the halt, the wistfulness about the ensuing year, which is like autumn in a man’s life. His wife was casting him off, half regretfully, but relentlessly; casting him off and turning now for love and life to the children. Henceforward


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Sincere Brethren

SINCERE BRETHREN (Ar. Ikhwān al-Safā wa-Khullān al-Wafā, the Sincere Brethren and True Friends). A transcendental and scientific order of esoteric nature in Islam, existing at Basra, on the Lower Euphrates, about 1000. (See .) Little is known of the personality of the members, the leader of whom may have been one Zayd ibn Rifaa. It was a constituent part of their philosophy that perfection could only be reached through the coöperation of souls, each contributing its share to the common treasury of goodness and knowledge; hence logically their association took the form of an esoteric society with a simple organization into which any sincere and helpful-spirited man could enter. The order was divided into four ideal grades: the first for the younger members, and for those of practical ability; the second for those over thirty years, who could fulfill the office of teachers; the third for those over forty, who could rule in the society, their authority being one of mildness and admonition; the fourth for those who were fit to attain the vision of God. The Epistles of the Sincere Brethren (Rasāil Ikhwān al-Ṣafā) consists of fifty-one treatises and is an encyclopædia of the Arabic philosophy of the age, methodically arranged, and bound together by the philosophy of the order. This is based upon Neo-Platonic and other late Greek philosophies, with evident contributions from Oriental mysticism, the authors being Shiite. The doctrine is that of an All-Soul, which first projects matter from itself, and continuously spiritualizes it by emanations; on the other hand, these soul-parts naturally yearn for return to their origin. But this redemption is hampered by the opposition of spirit and matter. The ethics of the encyclopædia, therefore, inculcates the gradual self-purification of those who recognize their spiritual birthright away from sense to God. But while ethically dualistic, the encyclopædia has a pantheistic metaphysics, and is interested in all created things as being immediately derived from God. Hence the work becomes an encyclopædia of all knowledge. The work has been made known to modern Europe through the labors of Dieterici in a series of translations of

almost all but the last quarter of the book, published between 1861 and 1872 (Berlin and Leipzig), concluding with a general survey in Die Philosophie der Araber (Leipzig, 1876-79). He has also published as a translation one of the episodes, Der Streit zwischen Mensch und Thier (Berlin, 1858), and its original (ib., 1879); also a selection of the original texts in Abhandlungen der Ichwān es-Safā (ib., 1883-86). Consult also: Flügel, in Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. xiii.; and Lane-Poole, Studies in a Mosque (London, 1883).

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


text:
MediaWiki:Gadget-CleanDeleteReasons

Clean Delete Reasons - This script will remove the automatic deletion reasons to keep the delete logs cleaner. It will not affect the reason that come from the URL.

title: MediaWiki:Gadget-CleanDeleteReasons


text:
MediaWiki:Gadget-CleanDeleteReasons.js

/* MediaWiki:Gadget-CleanDeleteReasons.js */ /* * Empty the "Other/additional reason" text field on action=delete pages. * * This field by default contains the raw wikitext of the page being deleted, * which is pretty useless most of the time and makes the deletion log very * hard to read. It also tends to discourage admins (humans) from actually * entering a real explanation of why they are deleting the page, unlike an * empty textfield that actually tends to encourage that. */ $(function {	var $reason = $("#wpReason input");	var regexp = /(?:content was|page was empty|content before blanking was)/i;	if (regexp.test($reason.val)) {		$reason.val("");	} });

title: MediaWiki:Gadget-CleanDeleteReasons.js


text:
Page:Sons and Lovers, 1913, Lawrence.djvu/60

48 he was more or less a husk. And he half acquiesced, as so many men do, yielding their place to their children.

During his recuperation, when it was really over between them, both made an effort to come back somewhat to the old relationship of the first months of their marriage. He sat at home and, when the children were in bed, and she was sewing—she did all her sewing by hand, made all shirts and children’s clothing—he would read to her from the newspaper, slowly pronouncing and delivering the words like a man pitching quoits. Often she hurried him on, giving him a phrase in anticipation. And then he took her words humbly.

The silences between them were peculiar. There would be the swift, slight “cluck” of her needle, the sharp “pop” of his lips as he let out the smoke, the warmth, the sizzle on the bars as he spat in the fire. Then her thoughts turned to William. Already he was getting a big boy. Already he was top of the class, and the master said he was the smartest lad in the school. She saw him a man, young, full of vigour, making the world glow again for her.

And Morel sitting there, quite alone, and having nothing to think about, would be feeling vaguely uncomfortable. His soul would reach out in its blind way to her and find her gone. He felt a sort of emptiness, almost like a vacuum in his soul. He was unsettled and restless. Soon he could not live in that atmosphere, and he affected his wife. Both felt an oppression on their breathing when they were left together for some time. Then he went to bed and she settled down to enjoy herself alone, working, thinking, living.

Meanwhile another infant was coming, fruit of this little peace and tenderness between the separating parents. Paul was seventeen months old when the new baby was born. He was then a plump, pale child, quiet, with heavy blue eyes, and still the peculiar slight knitting of the brows. The last child was also a boy, fair and bonny. Mrs. Morel was sorry when she knew she was with child, both for economic reasons and because she did not love her husband; but not for the sake of the infant.

They called the baby Arthur. He was very pretty, with a mop of gold curls, and he loved his father from the first. Mrs. Morel was glad this child loved the father. Hearing the miner’s footsteps, the baby would put up his arms and crow. And if Morel were in a good temper, he called back immediately, in his hearty, mellow voice:

“What then, my beauty? I sh’ll come to thee in a minute.”


text:
Page:Sons and Lovers, 1913, Lawrence.djvu/61

Rh And as soon as he had taken off his pit-coat, Mrs. Morel would put an apron round the child, and give him to his father.

“What a sight the lad looks!” she would exclaim sometimes, taking back the baby, that was smutted on the face from his father’s kisses and play. Then Morel laughed joyfully. “He’s a little collier, bless his bit o’ mutton!” he exclaimed.

And these were the happy moments of her life now, when the children included the father in her heart.

Meanwhile William grew bigger and stronger and more active, while Paul, always rather delicate and quiet, got slimmer, and trotted after his mother like her shadow. He was usually active and interested, but sometimes he would have fits of depression. Then the mother would find the boy of three or four crying on the sofa.

“What’s the matter?” she asked, and got no answer.

“What’s the matter?” she insisted, getting cross.

“I don’t know,” sobbed the child.

So she tried to reason him out of it, or to amuse him, but without effect. It made her feel beside herself. Then the father, always impatient, would jump from his chair and shout:

“If he doesn’t stop, I’ll smack him till he does.”

“You’ll do nothing of the sort,” said the mother coldly. And then she carried the child into the yard, plumped him into his little chair, and said: “Now cry there, Misery!”

And then a butterfly on the rhubarb-leaves perhaps caught his eye, or at last he cried himself to sleep. These fits were not often, but they caused a shadow in Mrs. Morel’s heart, and her treatment of Paul was different from that of the other children.

Suddenly one morning as she was looking down the alley of the Bottoms for the barm-man, she heard a voice calling her. It was the thin little Mrs. Anthony in brown velvet.

“Here, Mrs. Morel, I want to tell you about your Willie.”

“Oh, do you?” replied Mrs. Morel. “Why, what’s the matter?”

“A lad as gets ’old of another an’ rips his clothes off’n ’is back,” Mrs. Anthony said, “wants showing something.”

“Your Alfred’s as old as my William,” said Mrs. Morel.

“ ’Appen ’e is, but that doesn’t give him a right to get hold of the boy’s collar, an’ fair rip it clean off his back.” 4


text:
Page:Sons and Lovers, 1913, Lawrence.djvu/62

50 “Well,” said Mrs. Morel, “I don’t thrash my children, and even if I did, I should want to hear their side of the tale.”

“They’d happen be a bit better if they did get a good hiding,” retorted Mrs. Anthony. “When it comes ter rippin’ a lad’s clean collar off’n ’is back a purpose——”

“I’m sure he didn’t do it on purpose,” said Mrs. Morel.

“Make me a liar!” shouted Mrs. Anthony.

Mrs. Morel moved away and closed her gate. Her hand trembled as she held her mug of barm.

“But I s’ll let your mester know,” Mrs. Anthony cried after her.

At dinner-time, when William had finished his meal and wanted to be off again—he was then eleven years old—his mother said to him:

“What did you tear Alfred Anthony’s collar for?”

“When did I tear his collar?”

“I don’t know when, but his mother says you did.”

“Why—it was yesterday—an’ it was torn a’ready.”

“But you tore it more.”

“Well, I’d got a cobbler as ’ad licked seventeen—an’ Alfy Ant’ny ’e says:

An’ so I says, ‘Oh, Pinch-you,’ an’ so I pinched ’im, an’ ’e was mad, an’ so he snatched my cobbler an’ run off with it. An’ so I run after ’im, an’ when I was gettin’ hold of him, ’e dodged, an’ it ripped ’is collar. But I got my cobbler——”

He pulled from his pocket a black old horse-chestnut hanging on a string. This old cobbler had “cobbled”—hit and smashed—seventeen other cobblers on similar strings. So the boy was proud of his veteran.

“Well,” said Mrs. Morel, “you know you’ve got no right to rip his collar.”

“Well, our mother!” he answered. “I never meant tr’a done it—an’ it was on’y an old indirrubber collar as was torn a’ready.”

“Next time,” said his mother, “you be more careful. I shouldn’t like it if you came home with your collar torn off.”

“I don’t care, our mother; I never did it a-purpose.”

The boy was rather miserable at being reprimanded.

“No—well, you be more careful.”


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Herschell, Farrer


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hessey, James Augustus


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Heurtley, Charles Abel


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hewett, Prescott Gardner


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


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jewett, Randolph


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jewitt, Thomas Orlando Sheldon


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jewsbury, Geraldine Endsor


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jewsbury, Maria Jane


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jezreel, James Jershom


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Joan (1165-1199)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Joan (d.1237)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Joan (1210-1238)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Joan of Acre


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Joan, Queen of Scotland


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


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jobson, Richard


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jocelin (d.1199)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jocelin de Brakelond


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jocelin (fl.1200)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jocelin of Wells


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jocelyn, Percy


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jocelyn, Robert (1688?-1756)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jocelyn, Robert (1731-1797)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jocelyn, Robert (1788-1870)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jodrell, Paul


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Jodrell, Richard Paul


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hicks, Henry


text:
User:KenBailey

See w:User:KenBailey.

title: User:KenBailey


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Higinbotham, George


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hill, Joseph Sidney


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hill, Stephen John


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hillary, William (1771-1847)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hinchliff, Thomas Woodbine


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hincks, Thomas (1818-1899)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hind, John Russell


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hine, Henry George


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hirst, Thomas Archer


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hitchcock, Robert (fl.1580-1591)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hoddesdon, Christopher


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hodgson, Brian Houghton


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hodgson, John Evan


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hogg, Jabez


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hoghton, Daniel


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hohenlohe-Langenburg, Victor


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Holden, Hubert Ashton


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Holden, Isaac


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hollond, John


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Holloway, Charles


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hooppell, Robert Eli


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hopkinson, John (1849-1898)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hornby, Geoffrey Thomas Phipps


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hort, Fenton John Anthony


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Hoste, George Charles


text: Index:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu


text:
User talk:Dylan k

Welcome

Hello, Dylan k, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * Help pages
 * Style guide
 * Inclusion policy
 * For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in Add the code active projects, PotM or CotW to your page for current wikisource projects.
 * Proofread of the Month
 * Community collaboration
 * Requested texts

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question.

Again, welcome!

I'd love to help. Can we chat via skype or google voice? my email is. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dylan k


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/1


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/2


text:
United States v. Bormes/Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 11–192

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. JAMES X. BORMES

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

[November 13, 2012]

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Little Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. §1346(a)(2), provides that "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of . ..[a]ny. ..civil action or claim against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded. ..upon . ..any Act of Congress." We consider whether the Little Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to damages actions for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U. S. C. §1681 et seq.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act has as one of its purposes to "protect consumer privacy." Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U. S. 47, 52 (2007); see 84 Stat. 1128, 15 U. S. C. §1681. To that end, FCRA provides, among other things, that "no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction." §1681c(g)(1) (emphasis added). The Act defines "person" as "any individual, partnership,

corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, government or governmental subdivision or agency, or other entity." §1681a(b).

FCRA imposes civil liability for willful or negligent noncompliance with its requirements: "Any person who willfully fails to comply" with the Act "with respect to any consumer," "is liable to that consumer" for actual damages or damages "of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000," as well as punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs. §1681n(a); see also §1681o (civil liability for negligent noncompliance). The Act includes a jurisdictional provision, which provides that "[a]n action to enforce any liability created under this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United States district court, without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction" within the earlier of "2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the violation that is the basis for such liability" or "5 years after the date on which the violation that is the basis for such liability occurs." §1681p.

Respondent James X. Bormes is an attorney who filed a putative class action against the United States in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking damages under FCRA. Bormes alleged that he paid a $350 federal-court filing fee for a client using his own credit card on Pay.gov, an Internet-based system used by federal courts and dozens of federal agencies to process online payment transactions. According to Bormes, his Pay.gov electronic receipt included the last four digits of his credit card, in addition to its expiration date, in willful violation of §1681c(g)(1). He claimed that he and thousands of similarly situated persons were entitled to recover damages under §1681n, and asserted jurisdiction under §1681p, as well as under the Little Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. §1346(a)(2).

The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that

FCRA does not contain the explicit waiver of sovereign immunity necessary to permit a damages suit against the United States. 638 F. Supp. 2d 958, 962 (ND Ill. 2009). The court did not address the Little Tucker Act as an asserted basis for jurisdiction. Respondent appealed to the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction "of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States . ..if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on" the Little Tucker Act. 28 U. S. C. §1295(a)(2). Arguing that the Little Tucker Act's jurisdictional grant did not apply to respondent's suit, the Government moved to transfer the appeal to the Seventh Circuit.

The Federal Circuit denied the transfer motion and went on to vacate the District Court's decision. Without deciding whether FCRA itself contained the requisite waiver of sovereign immunity, the court held that the Little Tucker Act provided the Government's consent to suit for violation of FCRA. The court explained that the Little Tucker Act applied because FCRA "'can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained.'" 626 F. 3d 574, 578 (2010) (quoting United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U. S. 465, 472 (2003)). This "fair interpretation" rule, the court explained, "demands a showing 'demonstrably lower' than the initial waiver of sovereign immunity" contained in the Little Tucker Act itself. 626 F. 3d, at 578. The court reasoned that FCRA satisfied the "fair interpretation" rule because its damages provision applies to "any person" who willfully violates its requirements, 15 U. S. C. §1681n(a), and the Act elsewhere defines "person" to include "any . ..government," §1681a(b). 626 F. 3d, at 580. The Federal Circuit remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. We granted certiorari, 565 U. S. ___ (2012).

Sovereign immunity shields the United States from suit absent a consent to be sued that is "'unequivocally expressed.'" United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 33–34 (1992) (quoting Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89, 95 (1990); some internal quotation marks omitted). The Little Tucker Act is one statute that unequivocally provides the Federal Government's consent to suit for certain money-damages claims. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 216 (1983) (Mitchell II). Subject to exceptions not relevant here, the Little Tucker Act provides that "district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims," of a "civil action or claim against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort." 28 U. S. C. §1346(a)(2). The Little Tucker Act and its companion statute, the Tucker Act, §1491(a)(1), do not themselves "creat[e] substantive rights," but "are simply jurisdictional provisions that operate to waive

$1$ It is undisputed that this class action satisfied the Little Tucker Act's amount-in-controversy limitation. We have held that to require only that the "claims of individual members of the clas[s] do not exceed $10,000." United States v. Will, 449 U. S. 200, 211, n. 10 (1980).

$2$ Whereas the Little Tucker Act creates jurisdiction in the district courts concurrent with the Court of Federal Claims for covered claims of $10,000 or less, the Tucker Act assigns jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims regardless of monetary amount. As relevant here, the scope of the two statutes is otherwise the same. The third statute in the Tucker Act trio, the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. §1505, "confers alike waiver for Indian tribal claims that 'otherwise would be cognizable in the Court of Federal Claims if the claimant were not an Indian tribe.'" United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U. S. 465, 472 (2003) (quoting §1505).

sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources of law." United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U. S. 287, 290 (2009).

Bormes argues that whether or not FCRA itself unambiguously waives sovereign immunity, the Little Tucker Act authorizes his FCRA damages claim against the United States. The question, then, is whether a damages claim under FCRA "falls within the terms of the Tucker Act," so that "the United States has presumptively consented to suit." Mitchell II, supra, at 216. It does not. Where, as in FCRA, a statute contains its own self-executing remedialscheme, we look only to that statute to determine whether Congress intended to subject the United States to damages liability.

The Court of Claims was established, and the Tucker Act enacted, to open a judicial avenue for certain monetary claims against the United States. Before the creation of the Court of Claims in 1855, see Act of Feb. 24, 1855 (1855 Act), ch. 122, §1, 10 Stat. 612, it was not uncommon for statutes to impose monetary obligations on the United States without specifying a means of judicial enforcement. As a result, claimants routinely petitioned Congress for private bills to recover money owed by the Federal Government. See Mitchell II, supra, at 212 (citing P. Bator, P. Mishkin, D. Shapiro & H. Wechsler, Hart and

$3$For example, the Act of March 30, 1814, provided that every non-commissioned U. S. army officer who "may be captured by the enemy, shall be entitled to receive during his captivity . ..the same pay, subsistence, and allowance to which he may be entitled whilst in the actual service of the United States." §14, 3 Stat. 115, repealed in 1962 by Pub. L. 87–649, §14, 76 Stat. 498. The 1814 Act clearly "command[ed] the payment of a specified amount of money by the United States," Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U. S. 879, 923 (1988) (, J., dissenting), but did not designate a means of judicial relief in the event the Government failed to pay.

Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System 98 (2d ed. 1973)). As this individualized legislative process became increasingly burdensome for Congress, the Court of Claims was created "to relieve the pressure on Congress caused by the volume of private bills." Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U. S. 530, 552 (1962) (plurality opinion). The 1855 Act authorized the Court of Claims to hear claims against the United States "founded upon any law of Congress," §1, 10 Stat. 612, and thus allowed claimants to sue the Federal Government for monetary relief premised on other sources of law. (Specialized legislation remained necessary to authorize the payments approved by the Court of Claims until 1863, when Congress empowered the court to enter final judgments. See Act of Mar. 3, 1863 (1863 Act), ch. 92, 12 Stat. 765; Mitchell II, supra, at 212– 214 (recounting the history of the Court of Claims)).

Enacted in 1887, the Tucker Act was the successor statute to the 1855 and 1863 Acts and replaced most of their provisions. See Act of Mar. 3, 1887 (1887 Act), ch. 359, 24 Stat. 505; Mitchell II, supra, at 213–214. Like the 1855 Act before it, the Tucker Act provided the Federal Government’s consent to suit in the Court of Claims for claims "founded upon . ..any law of Congress." 1887 Act §1, 24 Stat. 505. Section 2 of the 1887 Act created concurrent jurisdiction in the district courts for claims of up to $1,000. The Tucker Act's jurisdictional grant, and accompanying immunity waiver, supplied the missing ingredient for an action against the United States for the breach of monetary obligations not otherwise judicially enforceable.

$4$For purposes of this case, the current versions of the Tucker Act and Little Tucker Act resemble the 1887 Act. Compare 28 U. S. C. §1491(a)(1) (permitting suits "founded . ..upon . ..any Act of Congress") with Tucker Act §1, 24 Stat. 505 (permitting suits "founded upon . ..any law of Congress, except for pensions"). The prior functions of the Court of Claims are now divided between the Court of Federal Claims at the trial level and the Federal Circuit at the appellate.

The Tucker Act is displaced, however, when a law assertedly imposing monetary liability on the United States contains its own judicial remedies. In that event, the specific remedial scheme establishes the exclusive framework for the liability Congress created under the statute. Because a "precisely drawn, detailed statute pre-empts more general remedies," Hinck v. United States, 550 U. S. 501, 506 (2007) (quoting EC Term of Years Trust v. United States, 550 U. S. 429, 434 (2007); internal quotation marks omitted), FCRA's self-executing remedial scheme supersedes the gap-filling role of the Tucker Act.

We have long recognized that an additional remedy in the Court of Claims is foreclosed when it contradicts the limits of a precise remedial scheme. In Nichols v. United States, 7 Wall. 122, 131 (1869), the issue was whether the 1855 Act authorized suit in the Court of Claims for improper assessment of duties on imported liquor that had already been paid without protest. The Court held that it did not. The revenue laws already provided a remedy: An aggrieved merchant could sue to recover the tax, but only after paying the duty under protest. Act of Feb. 26, 1845, ch. 22, 5 Stat. 727. The Court rejected the supposition that "Congress, after having carefully constructed a revenue system, with ample provisions to redress wrong, intended to give to the taxpayer and importer a further and different remedy." 7 Wall., at 131. Permitting suit under the 1855 Act, the Court concluded, would frustrate congressional intent with respect to the specific remedial scheme already in place. The 1855 Act was confined to a gap-filling role. As we said in a later case, "the general laws which govern the Court of Claims may be resorted to for relief" only because "[n]o special remedy has been provided" to enforce a payment to which the claimant was entitled. United States v. Kaufman, 96 U. S. 567, 569 (1878). Where the "liability is one created by statute," the

"special remedy provided by the same statute is exclusive." Ibid.

Our more recent cases have consistently held that statutory schemes with their own remedial framework exclude alternative relief under the general terms of the Tucker Act. See, e.g., Hinck, supra; United States v. Fausto, 484 U. S. 439 (1988); United States v. Erika, Inc., 456 U. S. 201 (1982). Respondent contends that in each of those cases Congress had unambiguously demonstrated its intent to foreclose additional review by the Court of Federal Claims—whereas here, no similar intent to preclude Tucker Act jurisdiction is apparent. See Brief for Respondent 27–28. But our precedents collectively stand for a more basic proposition: Where a specific statutory scheme provides the accoutrements of a judicial action, the metes and bounds of the liability Congress intended to create can only be divined from the text of the statute itself.

In Hinck, for example, we held that the Tax Court provides the exclusive forum for suits under 26 U. S. C. §6404(h), which authorizes judicial review of the Secretary's decision not to abate interest under §6404(e)(1). We relied on "our past recognition that when Congress enacts a specific remedy when no remedy was previously recognized . ..the remedy provided is generally regarded as

$5$We therefore need not resolve the parties' disagreement about whether certain inconsistencies between the Little Tucker Act and FCRA can be reconciled. Compare 28 U. S. C. §1346(a)(2) (no claims in district court "exceeding $10,000 in amount") with 15 U. S. C. §1681p (claims may be brought in district court "without regard to the amount in controversy"); compare 28 U. S. C. §2501 (claims must be filed in the Court of Federal Claims within six years of accrual) with 15 U. S. C. §1681p (claims under FCRA must be filed within the earlier of two years after discovery or five years after the alleged violation). Reconcilable or not, FCRA governs. The Government also contends that the Tucker Act does not apply because §§1681n and 1681o sound in tort. We do not decide the merits of that alternative argument.

exclusive." 550 U. S., at 506. Section 6404(h), we concluded, "fits the bill": it "provides a forum for adjudication, a limited class of potential plaintiffs, a statute of limitations, a standard of review, and authorization for judicial relief." Ibid. It did not matter that Congress "fail[ed] explicitly to define the Tax Court's jurisdiction as exclusive." Ibid. We found it "quite plain that the terms of §6404(h)—a 'precisely drawn, detailed statute' filling a perceived hole in the law—control all requests for review of §6404(e)(1) determinations." Ibid.

Like §6404(h), FCRA creates a detailed remedial scheme. Its provisions "set out a carefully circumscribed, time-limited, plaintiff-specific" cause of action, and "also precisely define the appropriate forum." Id., at 507. It authorizes aggrieved consumers to hold "any person" who "willfully" or "negligent[ly]" fails to comply with the Act's requirements liable for specified damages. 15 U. S. C. §§1681n(a), 1681o. Claims to enforce liability must be brought within a specified limitations period, §1681p, and jurisdiction will lie "in any appropriate United States district court, without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction." Ibid. Without resort to the Tucker Act, FCRA enables claimants to pursue in court the monetary relief contemplated by the statute.

Plaintiffs cannot, therefore, mix and match FCRA's provisions with the Little Tucker Act's immunity waiver to create an action against the United States. Since FCRA is a detailed remedial scheme, only its own text can determine whether the damages liability Congress crafted extends to the Federal Government. To hold otherwise—to permit plaintiffs to remedy the absence of a waiver of sovereign immunity in specific, detailed statutes by pleading general Tucker Act jurisdiction—would transform the sovereign-immunity landscape.

The Federal Circuit was therefore wrong to conclude

that the Tucker Act justified applying a "less stringent" sovereign-immunity analysis to FCRA than our cases require. 626 F. 3d, at 582. It distorted our case law in applying to FCRA the immunity-waiver standard we expressed in White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U. S., at 472: whether the statute "'can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained.'" 626 F. 3d, at 578. That is the test for determining whether a statute that imposes an obligation but does not provide the elements of a cause of action qualifies for suit under the Tucker Act—more specifically, whether the failure to perform an obligation undoubtedly imposed on the Federal Government creates a right to monetary relief. See White Mountain Apache Tribe, supra; Mitchell II, 463 U. S. 206. That test is not relevant when a "mandate of compensation" is contained in a statute that provides a detailed judicial remedy against those who are subject to its requirements. FCRA is such a statute. By using the "fair interpretation" test to determine whether FCRA's civil liability provisions apply to the United States, the Federal Circuit directed the test to a purpose for which it was not designed and leapfrogged the threshold concern that the Tucker Act cannot be superimposed on an existing remedial scheme.

We do not decide here whether FCRA itself waives the Federal Government's immunity to damages actions under §1681n. That question is for the Seventh Circuit to consider once this case is transferred to it on remand. But whether or not FCRA contains the necessary waiver of immunity, any attempt to append a Tucker Act remedy to the statute’s existing remedial scheme interferes with its intended scope of liability. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case remanded with instructions to transfer the case to

the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.


text:
United States v. Bormes

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. BORMES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

No. 11–192. Argued October 2, 2012—Decided November 13, 2012

Respondent Bormes, an attorney, filed suit against the Federal Government, alleging that the electronic receipt he received when paying his client's federal-court filing fee on Pay.gov included the last four digits of his credit card number and the card's expiration date, in willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U. S. C. §1681 et seq. He sought damages under §1681n and asserted jurisdiction under §1681p, as well as under the Little Tucker Act, which grants district courts "original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of . ..[a]ny. .. civil action or claim against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded . ..upon . ..any Act of Congress," 28 U. S. C. §1346(a)(2). In dismissing the suit, the District Court held that FCRA did not explicitly waive the Federal Government's sovereign immunity. Bormes appealed to the Federal Circuit, which vacated the District Court's decision, holding that the Little Tucker Act provided the Government's consent to suit because the underlying statute—FCRA—could fairly be interpreted as mandating a right of recovery in damages.

Held: The Little Tucker Act does not waive the Government's sovereign immunity with respect to FCRA damages actions. Pp. 4–11.

(a) The Little Tucker Act and its companion statute, the Tucker Act, provide the Federal Government's consent to suit for certain money-damages claims "premised on other sources of law," United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U. S. 287, 290. The general terms of the Tucker Acts are displaced, however, when a law imposing monetary liability has its own judicial remedies. In that event, the specific remedial scheme establishes the exclusive framework for determining the scope of liability under the statute. See, e.g., Hinck v. United States, 550 U. S. 501. Pp. 4–7.

(b) FCRA is such a statute. Its detailed remedial scheme sets "out a carefully circumscribed, time-limited, plaintiff-specific" cause of action, and "also precisely define[s] the appropriate forum," 550 U. S., at 507. FCRA authorizes aggrieved consumers to hold "any person" who "willfully" or "negligent[ly]" fails to comply with the Act's requirements liable for specified damages, 15 U. S. C. §§1681n(a), 1681o; requires enforcement claims to be brought within a specified limitations period, §1681p; and provides that jurisdiction will lie "in any appropriate United States district court, without regard to the amount in controversy," ibid. Because FCRA enables claimants to pursue monetary relief in court without resort to the Tucker Act, only its own text can determine whether Congress unequivocally intended to impose the statute's damages liability on the Federal Government. Pp. 7–10.

626 F. 3d 574, vacated and remanded.

, delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

title: United States v. Bormes


text: Talk:United States v. Bormes

title: Talk:United States v. Bormes


text:
Page:The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, Volume I.pdf/108

92

Problem 50

Example of a round field of diameter 9 khet. What is its area?

Take away $1/undefined$ of the diameter, namely 1; the remainder is 8. Multiply 8 times 8; it makes 64. Therefore it contains 64 setat of land.

Do it thus:

this taken away leaves 8

Its area is 64 setat.

Problem 51

''Example of a triangle of land. Suppose it is said to thee, What is the area of a triangle of side 10 khet and of base'' 4 khet?

Do it thus:

Its area is 20 setat.

Take $1/undefined$ of 4, in order to get its rectangle. Multiply 10 times 2; this is its area.


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part IV. A. 4.djvu/10

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011 8  : generated in Saigon, Diem carrying his position to the highest levels of the agency of his choice, while U.S. representatives had to seek protagonists at various levels within their own agencies. The implications for U.S. policy in the field are obvious.

Because of the divisions and diversions inherent in the above, U.S. aid in the period up to 1960 failed to produce an effective counterinsurgent force either within the National Army, or in the paramilitary organizations. This is not to imply that had resources been diverted from the creation of a conventional array to that of an effective counterinsurgent force the problem of Vietnam would have been solved, for the enemy has demonstrated both versatility and flexibility that would render such a statement vacuous. It is to suggest, however, that given the world situation in the period of relevance and the situation in Southeast Asia, it seems likely that the DRV, whatever strategic alternative it might have elected to follow, would not have been deterred from overt aggression by any army of Vietnam it was within U.S.–GVN capability to create. An effective counterinsurgent force, on the other hand, might have limited its choices; might well have prevented effective prosecution of the guerrilla alternative the Viet Cong and the DRV did elect to follow. Rh


text:
Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/18

  before being admitted. Disciples of all ranks flocked to them, despite the severity of the probation, tempted, no doubt, by the honours and great privileges attached to the order, amongst which exemption from every kind of taxation and servitude were not the least.

The Druids taught the immortality of the soul, and its transmigration from one body to another, till, by some extraordinary act of virtue or courage, it merited to be received into the assembly of the gods.

Cæsar, in his "Commentaries," informs us that they instructed their pupils in the movements of the heavenly bodies, and the grandeur of the universe. Their knowledge of mathematics must have been considerable, since we find it applied to the measurement of the earth and stars. In mechanics they were equally advanced, judging from the monuments which remain to us.

Of these the most remarkable in England are Stonehenge, consisting of 139 enormous stones, ranged in a circle; and that of Abury, in Wiltshire, which covers a space of twenty-eight acres of land. But the largest of all the Druid temples is situated at Carnac, in the department of Morbihan, in France. It is formed of 400 stones, varying from five to twenty-seven feet in height, and ranged in eleven concentric lines.

It is difficult to say precisely from what source the Druids drew their doctrines, which have a striking affinity with those of Pythagoras and the sages of the East; probably it was from the latter they borrowed them. It was not the least singular of their dogmas, that the earth which we inhabit had passed through—and was still to experience—a variety of changes, but would never be destroyed.

They knew something of botany and medicine, but mingled with the latter certain magical and superstitious practices.

Of the secret tenets of the order, which were communicated only to the initiated, little positive is known.

The following curious inscription, found in the neighbourhood of Metz, proves that the Celts believed in visions, and the phenomena of magnetism:—

Such was the institution of Druidism, on which so many opinions have been expressed. To judge it properly, the reader must not lose sight of the epoch in which it flourished; that cruelty and superstition were, before the Christian era, the common errors of mankind. Would we could add that they had disappeared from the world under a better dispensation!

The sacrifice of human victims was one of the great sins of antiquity. The Romans, with all their boasted civilisation, offered to the avenging gods the blood of their prisoners. It was the triumph of Christianity to abolish such impious rites.

Thus much may fairly be said in defence of the Druids. Unlike the Brahmins of India, they had not the presumption to give themselves out as the descendants of a race divine; none were excluded from their order, to which merit and long study alone gave access; and they held, with the sages of antiquity, that the government of nations belonged of right to the wisest amongst them.

Ancient writers have transmitted but little information touching the morals and customs of the Britons. Cæsar,


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/643


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/644


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/645


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/646


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/647


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/648


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/7


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/8


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/6


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/5


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/4


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/3


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/9


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/10


text:
Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/11

HE preceding edition of this History has been most carefully corrected and revised, and the Publishers are thankful that the present one has not failed of a success more than equal to that which had attended its predecessor. The expectation which led them originally to publish and now to issue this revised edition of a history of this great country so as to meet the want of the great masses which compose so large a portion of it, has not been disappointed.

It is almost as vain to write the praises of history as it is unnecessary to write its apology. Whatever doubts may be entertained as to the merits of the classics as a means of education, history stands above all suspicion, and is pre-eminent not only as a means, but even as an end of knowledge.

We may regard history as in some sort the story of ourselves under circumstances different from those in which it finds us; which circumstances, however, time often repeats with remarkable similitude of detail. It is, indeed, more than this; it is the narrative of national as well as of individual life, and—in a higher aspect still—it is the narrative of the great human race. But even if we look on it only as a vast collection of biographies, we can hardly exaggerate the importance of its voice to us. It teaches its votary something of himself and of his kind which the profoundest philosopher without it could never know. If we except Nature and Revelation, what else is there beyond the domain of history? Indeed, it is the complement of these, and with these fills up all experience and all thought. But if this be true of universal history, it is true in a sense more confined and yet more intense of the history of our own country. The exceeding interest of this latter will let none of us escape. It is our text-book in childhood, but we have not grasped its wisdom or exhausted its pleasure in age. We delight in it, not merely because it tells of our own fathers and our own homes, but because it, more than any other, presents the broad surface of the people; because it is concerned, not only with kings, and statesmen, and warriors, but with the toilers at the plough, and at the counter, and at the desk—with the great middle class, whose growth in extent and power forms so large a portion of its page; because it exhibits a unity of design and a continuity of action which is not so patent, even if it exists, elsewhere; because it leads by marked gradations through the practical logic of great principles to that national product which we now enjoy with so much pride and satisfaction; because it is the voice of a people whose language is more wide-spread and more potent in the ears of friends and foes than that of any tongue on earth, and is enriched with science and with song to which few others can aspire.

On the other hand, the history of this country, as of all others, presents a corrective to that national pride and self-sufficiency which it may at first seem to engender. We, too, have come forth from the dark ages dyed with their superstitions and their crimes. We have lingered long indeed upon the threshold of this more exalted time. We can boast no great, unbroken unity of race, religion, and polity, as the Jew of other days might boast with justice. The Reformation found us as it found others, and did not find us first. We have made great national mistakes and committed great national crimes in our policy at home and abroad, and the sciences of political and domestic


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/13


text:
User talk:DancingPhilosopher

Welcome
Welcome

Hello, DancingPhilosopher, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * Help pages
 * Style guide
 * Inclusion policy
 * For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in Add the code active projects, PotM or CotW to your page for current wikisource projects.
 * Proofread of the Month
 * Community collaboration
 * Requested texts

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question.

Again, welcome! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:DancingPhilosopher


text:
User talk:Gregory Heffley

Welcome
Welcome

Hello, Gregory Heffley, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * Help pages
 * Style guide
 * Inclusion policy
 * For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in Add the code active projects, PotM or CotW to your page for current wikisource projects.
 * Proofread of the Month
 * Community collaboration
 * Requested texts

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question.

Again, welcome! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gregory Heffley


text:
United States v. Felix

During the summer of 1987, respondent Felix manufactured methamphetamine at an Oklahoma facility. After Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents shut down that facility, Felix ordered additional chemicals and equipment from a DEA informant for delivery in Missouri. Federal Government officials observed the delivery, arrested him, and charged him with the offense of attempting to manufacture an illegal drug. At his trial in Missouri, the Government, in order to establish Felix's criminal intent, introduced evidence that he had manufactured methamphetamine in Oklahoma, and he was convicted. Subsequently, he was named in, inter alia, six counts of an indictment filed in a Federal District Court in Oklahoma. Count 1 charged him with conspiracy to manufacture, possess, and distribute methamphetamine. Two of the overt acts supporting this charge were based on the same conduct that had been the subject of the Missouri prosecution. The other counts charged him with substantive drug offenses, and at trial the Government introduced much of the same evidence of the Missouri and Oklahoma transactions that had been introduced at the Missouri trial. Felix was convicted, but the Court of Appeals reversed, relying on language in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 521, that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution where the government, "to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted." With respect to the conspiracy count, the court observed that in both trials, the Government proved that Felix had learned to make, and had manufactured, methamphetamine in Oklahoma and had sought to purchase more chemicals and equipment in Missouri. The court also noted that the direct evidence supporting the substantive offenses—that Felix had purchased chemicals and equipment during the spring of 1987 and had manufactured methamphetamine in Oklahoma—had been introduced at the Missouri trial to show intent.

Held: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar Felix's prosecution on either the substantive drug offenses or the conspiracy charge. Pp. 384–392.

'''[p. 379]''' (a) None of the substantive offenses for which Felix was prosecuted in Oklahoma is in any sense the same offense for which he was prosecuted in Missouri. The actual crimes charged in each case were different in both time and place, and no common conduct links them. In addition, mere overlap in proof between two prosecutions does not establish a double jeopardy violation. Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred to the extent that it assumed that if the Government offers in evidence in one prosecution acts of misconduct that might ultimately be charged as criminal offenses in a second prosecution, the latter prosecution is barred. And it gave an extravagant reading to Grady, supra, which disclaimed any intention of adopting a "'same evidence'" test, id., at 521, and n. 12. Pp. 384–387.

(b) A substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not the "same offense" for double jeopardy purposes, see, e. g., United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532; Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 643, even if they are based on the same underlying incidents, because the "essence" of a conspiracy offense "is in the agreement or confederation to commit a crime," Bayer, supra, at 542. This established doctrine predates, and was not questioned in, Grady, supra. In addition, while Grady—which involved a State's reliance on a defendant's two traffic offense convictions to sustain later-filed homicide and assault charges arising from the same accident—may be useful in cases arising from a "single course of conduct," it is much less helpful in analyzing prosecutions involving multilayered conduct, such as the conspiracy prosecution here. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in essentially reading Grady as substituting for the "same offence" language of the Double Jeopardy Clause a test based on whether the two prosecutions involve the same conduct. Pp. 387–391.

926 F.2d 1522, reversed.

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., joined, and in Parts I and II of which Blackmun and Stevens, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Blackmun, J., joined, post, p. 392.

Deputy Solicitor General Bryson argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Mueller, and James A. Feldman.

'''[p. 380]''' Scott M. Anderson argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

title: United States v. Felix


text:
Author:Jean-Adolphe Decourdemanche

Works

 * Sottisier de Nasr-eddin-hodja, bouffon de Tamerlan: suivi d'autres facéties turques. (1878, French)

title: Author:Jean-Adolphe Decourdemanche


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Latrobe, Charles Joseph


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Laurie, Henry


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lavater, George Theodore Adams


text:
Haynes v. Thaler

(ORDER LIST: 568 U.S.)

12-6760 HAYNES, ANTHONY C. V. THALER, DIR., TX DCJ (12A369)

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the Court is granted pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

Justice Scalia and Justice Alito would deny the application for stay of execution.

title: Haynes v. Thaler


text: Talk:Haynes v. Thaler

title: Talk:Haynes v. Thaler


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Layard, Edgar Leopold


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Leake, George


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Leake, Hon. George Walpole


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lefroy, Anthony O'Grady


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lefroy, Lieut.-General Sir John Henry


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Legge, Colonel William Vincent


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lette, Hon. Henry Elms


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Levey, George Collins


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Levien, Hon. Jonas Felix


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Leys, Thomson Wilson


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Ligar, Charles Whybrow


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lilley, Hon. Sir Charles


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lindauer, Gottfried


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Linton, Right Rev. Sydney


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lipson, Captain Thomas


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lisgar (1st Lord)


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lissner, Isodor


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Liversidge, Professor Archibald


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lloyd, Hon. George Alfred


text:
Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/12

vi economy are only beginning to take hold upon us. Our history clearly points out that our geographical position may well dispute with the genius of the people the merit of making us what we are; and our geographical position and our mineral wealth are blessings for which we cannot thank ourselves.

The slow building of a constitution which finds no parallel in the world is the most distinctive, as it is the largest, feature in English history. But this does not render it a mere monotonous political dissertation. The movements of the people are broken in upon by wars from without, and tumults and revolutions from within. Great actors and great thinkers come upon the sight, and for a moment nothing else is seen. How all these pressed on, or modified, or retarded the destiny of the nation is matter of difficult but most instructive research. How the various units of the great mass, which history can seek out, acted under the changing circumstances of the time, and moved under the diverse influences of events, of passion, and of principle, is matter pregnant with instruction to each of us. Nor is there instruction for the head alone. The whole of the complex nature of man is wrought upon. History thrusts upon the stage at once, or in quick and continued succession, tragedy, and comedy, and farce; and, as we weep, and laugh, and wonder, we must not forget that we are in the theatre, not of fancy, but of truth, and that every event, however slight, every entrance and every exit, possesses a real meaning and a real importance. It is often difficult, sometimes perhaps impossible, to discover this meaning and this importance; but even when we cannot perceive the connection between individual actors and the conduct of the plot, the individual cannot be utterly devoid of interest and instruction. An unimportant personage or a slight event may bring before us the spirit of the times, and the progress of lesser transactions, which are so apt to be forgotten in the great action of the moment. To the statesman, no doubt, the study of English history is of special importance, and he learns from it the genius of our constitution, and finds in it precedent, example, and warning peculiar to himself. But we all have an interest in the state, though it be not such as his, and we all find in that history precedent, and example, and warning. As every day adds to our knowledge of the past, it should add to our wisdom for the future; and if we do not profit in heart and head by the experience which the ages have gathered for us—if we do not grow, as they would have us, not only in wisdom, but in humility, in moderation, in humanity—we have to blame, not these unerring teachers, but ourselves.


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Loch, His Excellency Sir Henry Brougham


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Long, Hon. William Alexander


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Longmore, Hon. Francis


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lonsdale, Captain William


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lord, Hon. George William


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lorimer, Hon. Sir James


text:
Haynes v. Thaler/Statement Sotomayor

Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012)

Statement of, J.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 12–6760 (12A369)

ANTHONY CARDELL HAYNES v. RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY

[November 13, 2012]

Statement of, with whom joins, respecting the grant of stay of execution.

In this case, a divided Fifth Circuit panel rejected Anthony Haynes' application for a certificate of appealability on the ground that this Court's decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U. S. ___ (2012), "does not apply to Texas capital habeas petitioners." No. 12–70030, 2012 WL 4858204, *2 (Oct. 15, 2012). We recently granted certiorari to address precisely the question whether Martinez applies to habeas cases arising from Texas courts. See Trevino v. Thaler, 568 U. S. ___ (2012).

The dissent observes that on federal habeas review in this case, the District Court, after first concluding that Haynes had procedurally defaulted his claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective, ruled in the alternative that the claim failed on the merits. Post, at 2–3. But the Court of Appeals has never addressed the District Court's merits ruling, and has instead relied solely on procedural default. See 2012 WL 4858204, *2; Haynes v. Quarterman, 526 F. 3d 189, 194–195 (CA5 2008). The only appellate judge to consider the merits of Haynes' claim would have granted Haynes a certificate of appealability in his current case and stated that it was "difficult to conclude that Hayne[s] has not made a sufficient showing for a Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984),]

violation as to his trial counsel." 2012 WL 4858204, *4 (Dennis, J., dissenting). Under these circumstances, rather than assume the correctness of the District Court's unreviewed merits decision, I believe a stay of execution is warranted to allow Haynes to pursue his claim on remand if this Court in Trevino rejects the single ground relied upon by the Fifth Circuit for denying Haynes' application for a certificate of appealability.

title: Haynes v. Thaler/Statement Sotomayor


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Loton, William Thorley


text: Talk:Haynes v. Thaler/Statement Sotomayor


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lovett, Major Henry Wilton


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lovett, William


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lowe, Right Hon. Robert


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lowrie, William


text:
Author:George Moir Bussey

Works

 * History of Napoleon (1840)
 * Fables, Original and Selected (1842)
 * "The Cat and the Looking-Glass" by J.P.C. Florian, republished in An Argosy of Fables (1921)

title: Author:George Moir Bussey


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Loyau, George E.


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Lucas, Arthur Henry Shakespeare


text:
Haynes v. Thaler/Dissent Scalia

Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012)

, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 12–6760 (12A369)

ANTHONY CARDELL HAYNES v. RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY

[November 13, 2012]

, with whom and  join, dissenting from the grant of stay of execution.

I dissent from the Court's order of October 18, 2012, granting the application of Anthony Haynes for stay of execution of sentence of death. Petitioner Haynes, who had committed a series of armed robberies, was approached by off-duty Houston Police Department Officer Kent Kincaid after a bullet from Haynes's truck had cracked Kincaid's windshield. Kincaid, who thought the missile had been a rock, identified himself as a police officer and asked for Haynes's driving license. Haynes lifted a pistol and shot the officer in the head. Haynes was apprehended and confessed to the killing. He was tried for the capital murder of a peace officer "acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty," Tex. Penal Code Ann.§19.03(a)(1) (West Cum. Supp. 2012). A Texas jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death.

It has been more than 14 years since Haynes killed Officer Kincaid, 10 years since we denied Haynes's first petition for certiorari, see Haynes v. Texas, 535 U. S. 999 (2002), and six months since we denied his second, see Haynes v. Thaler, 566 U. S. ___ (2012). Haynes is now back before us a third time, arguing that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel and that his

procedural default of this claim is excused by our decision seven months ago in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U. S. ___ (2012), which he asserts entitles him to a reopening of his habeas proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).

The Fifth Circuit determined that Haynes did not qualify for relief under Martinez, which carved out a "limited" exception to our longstanding rule that attorney error on state collateral review does not constitute cause to excuse procedural default of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, see Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722 (1991). According to the Fifth Circuit, Texas inmates fall outside the scope of Martinez, which applies only "where the State barred the defendant from raising the claims on direct appeal," 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 14). See Ibarra v. Thaler, 687 F. 3d 222, 225–227 (2012). Haynes points to the practical difficulties in Texas of successfully raising an ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal or by motion for new trial.

Even if the Fifth Circuit is incorrect and Martinez does implicate Texas's system of post-conviction review, a stay is unwarranted here because Haynes presents no plausible claim for relief. His complaint is that his trial counsel was ineffective at sentencing. The absolute most to which he would be entitled under Martinez is excuse of his procedural default of this claim, enabling a federal district court to adjudicate the claim on the merits. But that is precisely what the District Court already did on federal habeas review. See Haynes v. Quarterman, Civ. No. H–05–3424, 2007 WL 268374 (SD Tex., Jan. 25, 2007). In addition to finding the majority of Haynes's ineffective-assistance claims procedurally defaulted, the court rejected all of them on the merits. It concluded that Haynes's argument was "'not that counsel's performance should have been better, rather, his argument is that counsel should have investigated and presented evidence at the punishment

phase in a completely different manner.'" Id., at *9. It rejected that argument because it concluded that his lawyers' decisions represented simply "the exercise of [a] strategy" different from what Haynes would now prefer. Ibid. It said that even "[i]f the constraints of federal review did not command that Haynes first give the state courts an opportunity to adjudicate his claims of error, this court would still not issue a habeas writ." Ibid. Thus, when the District Court denied Haynes's Rule 60(b)(6) motion, it correctly concluded that Martinez (which would do no more than excuse Haynes's procedural default) was beside the point, since the court had "already granted Haynes the relief he now requests: The court considered the merits of his barred claims." Haynes v. Thaler, 2012 WL 4739541, *5 (Oct. 3, 2012).

This stay cannot, therefore, be justified even as preserving an opportunity to challenge the sentence under Martinez. And because I see no reason to believe that the District Court was wrong about the merits of Haynes's claims, I also do not consider a stay warranted in order to plumb the record and correct any alleged factbound error of the District Court.

Haynes has already outlived the policeman whom he shot in the head by 14 years. I cannot join the Court's further postponement of the State's execution of its lawful judgment.

title: Haynes v. Thaler/Dissent Scalia


text: Talk:Haynes v. Thaler/Dissent Scalia

title: Talk:Haynes v. Thaler/Dissent Scalia


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 30.djvu/243

 in each volume often as many as two hundred references to him. In addition to the authorities referred to in the text may be mentioned: The manuscript Registers, &c., of St. John's College; Sir Thomas Herbert's Memoirs, ed. 1702; Strafford Papers; Baillie's Letters, ed. Laing; and Gardiner's History of England to the Civil War and History of the Great Civil War. The best sketches of his character are those of Sir P. Warwick (who had been his secretary), Memoirs, pp. 93–6, and Lloyd (who had Oxford sources of information), pp. 595–6. The Life by Dean Hook (‘Archbishops of Canterbury,’ vol. ii. new ser.) is concerned chiefly with the last days of the king, and dwells little on Juxon's political career. A biography by the Rev. W. Hennessy Marah, 1869, is a compilation from well-known sources, but gives some traditions of Juxon's residence at Little Compton.]  KALISCH, MARCUS (1825–1885), biblical commentator, born of Jewish parents at Treptow, Pomerania, on 16 May 1825, was educated at the Gymnasium of the Graue Kloster, Berlin, and at Berlin university, and became proficient in both classical and Semitic philology. He afterwards graduated Ph.D. at Halle, and studied talmudical literature in the Rabbinical college at Berlin. The revolutionary movement in Germany in 1848 excited his active sympathy, and he deemed it prudent on its subsidence to retire to England. His father had at an earlier date resided for a time at Ipswich. Settling in London, Kalisch was secretary to the chief rabbi, Dr. N. M. Adler, until 1853, and was introduced during that period to the Rothschild family. He acted as tutor to the sons of Baron Lionel Rothschild, and remained throughout life on terms of intimacy with his pupils and their relatives. With their aid he published in 1855 the first volume—on Exodus—of an exhaustive commentary on the Pentateuch, and this was followed by a volume on Genesis in 1858, and by two volumes on Leviticus dated 1867 and 1872 respectively. Kalisch treated his subject in a thoroughly rationalistic method, and, although discursive, his work is valuable as an embodiment of the results of advanced continental scholarship. His literary labours were interrupted by illness in 1873, but he recovered sufficiently to publish two parts of a projected series of biblical studies—pt. i. on the prophecies of Balaam in 1877, and pt. ii. on Jonah in 1878. In 1880 appeared his ‘Path and Goal: a Discussion on the Elements of Civilisation and the Conditions of Happiness,’ a learned exposition of religious systems. He died on 23 Aug. 1885, at Baslow hydropathic establishment, Rowsley, Derbyshire, and was buried in the Jewish cemetery at Willesden. By his wife Clara, daughter of Dr. S. Stern, director of the Realschule, Frankfort-on-Maine, he left a son and a daughter.

Besides the works mentioned, Kalisch published a useful Hebrew Grammar, 2 pts. 1862–3 (pt. i. new edit. 1875); ‘Leben und Kunst,’ a collection of German poems, 1868, and two lectures on Oliver Goldsmith, 1860.

[Men of the Time, 11th edit.; Jewish Chronicle, 28 Aug. 1885; Jewish World, 28 Aug. 1885; Times, 31 Aug. 1885.]  KAMES, (1696–1783), Scottish judge. [See .]

KANE, JOHN (d. 1834), second lieutenant and adjutant late royal invalid artillery, was promoted to that rank from sergeant 1 July 1799. He was author of the well-known ‘Kane's Lists,’ lists of the officers of the royal artillery from 1763 to the date of publication (Greenwich, 1815). Revised editions were published at Woolwich in 1869 and 1891. Kane died at Woolwich 29 Aug. 1834.

Another John Kane, presumably son of the above, a first lieutenant royal artillery, died at Calcutta in December 1818.

[Notes and Queries, 2nd ser. vi. 257; Army Lists; Kane's Lists, rev. edit.]  KANE, RICHARD (1666–1736?), brigadier-general, was born at Down, Ireland, 20 Dec. 1666, and entered the royal regiment of Ireland—since the 18th royal Irish foot—about 1689. The Irish military records are too imperfect to show his career in detail; but it appears that he was with the regiment in the Irish campaigns, and afterwards on board the fleet and in Flanders (, Narrative, pp. 1 et seq.). He was wounded as a captain in Lord Cutts's desperate assault on the castle of Namur on 1 Sept. 1695 (, 18th Foot, p. 18), on which occasion the regiment won the ‘Nassau Lion’ badge and motto, the oldest in the British service. He was wounded as major at Blenheim (ib. p. 28), and commanded the regiment as lieutenant-colonel at Malplaquet (ib. p. 36). In 1710 he was appointed colonel of a regiment of Irish foot, which had been raised by Lieutenant-general Macartney, and formed part of


text:
Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/19

 Pomponius Mela, and Diodorus Siculus speak of them with undisguised contempt. The first concluded, doubtless, from some isolated facts, that the community of women was a general usage in the island. This is one of his greatest errors, since it is proved that marriage was established amongst the principal nations of Britain, particularly the Celts, who exacted a rigorous chastity in their wives. They treated them with a respect which could only have existed amongst a people where marriage elevated woman to a level with man. They frequently submitted to be governed by the widows of their kings, who in more than one instance conducted them to battle.

The inhabitants of the island in the time of Cæsar lived in a very primitive state, depending for support upon their flocks and herds; their houses were of the rudest description, formed of osiers or wickers woven together, and tempered with mud; and their cities consisted of a number of these cabins ranged without order, and surrounded by a deep ditch or fosse.

The costume of the ancient Britons was equally primitive, being made from the spoils of the chase. These skins, Tertullian informs us, in preparing for war, they were accustomed to throw off, and display with pride their tall muscular bodies, tattooed in a variety of devices.

They were a handsome, athletic race, wearing their hair long, and the moustache upon the upper lip; and scanty as their numbers were, might have bid defiance to the Romans or any other invaders, had they not been divided by intestine broils and factions.

Such was the country and such the condition of its inhabitants when Cæsar undertook its conquest; to which he was led not so much by the thirst of dominion as by the necessity he found himself under of doing something to acquire a name which at Rome might balance that of Pompey. He had already partially subdued the Gauls, and determined on subjecting Britain.

Having decided on the expedition, the victorious general commenced his preparations with his accustomed energy. His first care was to obtain hostages from the Gauls; he questioned the merchants and others who had visited Britain as to its resources and extent, the natives which inhabited it, their manners, customs, and religion, and sent Comius, whom he had created King of the Atrabates in Gaul, to demand the submission of the islanders.

On the first news of the intended descent, the Britons, excited by the Druids and Bards, assembled in arms, in order to defend their coasts, but at the same time did not neglect other means of warding off the danger which threatened their independence, and dispatched ambassadors to Cæsar with offers of alliance. They were received

Druidical Monuments (restored), at Abury, Wiltshire.

courteously, although the wily Roman knew that, incited by their priests, they had arrested his messenger, and kept him in chains. Meanwhile Cæsar prepared his fleet, and assembled his soldiers for the expedition.

embarked the infantry of two of his legions in eighty vessels, which he assembled at Itius-Portus, supposed by some writers to be Calais, by others the village of Wessant, between that place and Boulogne. He divided the vessels amongst his principal officers, and set sail with a favourable wind during the night. Eighteen galleys at a distant part of the coast had received his cavalry, and sailed about the same time. At ten the following morning the


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/102

HOSE who believe that human actions obey the laws of natural causation, might find their philosophy confirmed by the conduct of the great powers of Europe during the early years of the Reformation. With a regularity uniform as that on which we calculate in the application of mechanical forces, the same combinations were attended with identical effects; and given the relations between France and Spain, between Spain and Germany, between England and either of the three, the political situation of all Western Christendom could be estimated with as much certainty as the figure and dimensions of a triangle from the length of one of its sides and the inclination of two of its angles. When England was making advances towards the Lutherans, we are sure that France and Spain were in conjunction under the Papacy, and were menacing the Reformation. When such advances had been pushed forward into prominence, and there was a likelihood of a Protestant league, the Emperor was compelled to neutralize the danger by concessions to the German Diet, or by an


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/103

1537.] affectation of a desire for a reconciliation with Henry, to which Henry was always ready to listen. Then Henry would look coldly on the Protestants, and the Protestants on him. Then Charles could afford to lay the curb on Francis. Then Francis would again storm and threaten, till passion broke into war. War brought its usual consequences of mutual injury, disaster, and exhaustion; and then the Pope would interfere, and peace would follow, and the same round would repeat itself. Statesmen and kings made, as they imagined, their fine strokes of policy. A wisdom other than theirs condemned them to tread again and again the same ineffectual circle.

But while fact and necessity were thus inexorable, imagination remained uncontrolled; and efforts were made of all kinds, and on all sides, to find openings of escape. The Emperor had boasted, in 1528, that he would rid himself of the English difficulty by a revolution which should dethrone Henry. The experiment had been tried with no success hitherto, and with indifferent prospects for the future. Revolution failing, he believed that he might reconvert England to the Papacy; while both Henry and the Germans on their side had not ceased to hope that they might convert the Emperor to the Reformation. The perspective of Europe varied with the point of view of the various parties. The picture was arranged by prejudice, and coloured by inclination.

The overtures to England which Charles had commenced on the death of Catherine, had been checked by


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/104

84 Henry's haughty answer; and Charles had replied by an indirect countenance, through his ambassador, to Pole, and to Lord Darcy. But the motives which had led to these overtures remained to invite their renewal; the insurrection was for the present prostrate, and the Emperor therefore withdrew his first step, and disowned his compromised minister in London. In June, 1537, Diego de Mendoza arrived at the English Court, with a commission to express in more emphatic terms the earnest wish of the Court of Spain for the renewal of the old alliance.

The King had done enough for the protection of his dignity; prudence now recommended him to believe in Charles's sincerity. A solid understanding with Flanders was the best passport to the hearts of large portions of his subjects, whose interests were connected with the wool trade: he was himself ardently anxious to resume his place in the fraternity of European sovereigns. Mendoza was graciously received. Sir Thomas Wyatt was despatched into Spain with a corresponding mission; and Wyatt's instructions were couched in language which showed that, although the English Government were under no delusion as to Charles's late proceedings, they were ready to close their eyes to objects which they did not wish to see. Wyatt was directed to say that the proposals for a reconciliation which had been made by the late ambassadors had appeared so feeble, as to seem rather a device of policy to prevent the King of England from


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/105

1537.] allying himself with France, than as intended in sincerity; M. de Mendoza, however, had removed all such unpleasant impressions; and although, if the Emperor would consider the past differences between the two Courts impartially, he must feel that the fault rested with himself, yet the English Government, on their side, were ready to set aside all painful recollections. There were persons, indeed, who affirmed that the Emperor was still trifling, that Mendoza was playing a game, and that, in 'heart, deed, and words,' the Spanish Court were 'doing all they could to his Majesty's dishonour.' Nay, even individuals could be found who boasted themselves to have refused some honest offers because they were knit with vile and filthy conditions towards his Majesty. The King, however, set aside these rumours, as either without foundation, or as belonging to the past rather than the present. He required only, as a condition of renewed friendship, that if the Pope found the means of attacking England, Charles should bind himself to be no party to such an enterprise, but should oppose it 'to the uttermost of his power.' In return, the Emperor might perhaps require that the Lady Mary should 'be restored to her rank as princess.' Some difficulty no doubt continued, and must continue, on this point. But it was a difficulty rather in form than in substance. The King desired that his daughter might be trusted to his honour: she might expect much from his generosity, if he was not


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/106

86 pressed to definite promises. Meanwhile, she herself had submitted without reserve; she had entreated pardon for her past disobedience, and accepted, her position as illegitimate. It was likely that she would retain her place in the line of succession. Should the King die without legitimate children, she would, in all probability, be his heir.

In confirmation of this language, Mary added a letter to the commission, in which, with her own hand, she assured the Emperor that she was satisfied, entreating him to 'repent,' as she had herself repented; and 'to take of her the tenour.'

Thus instructed, Wyatt proceeded to Spain; and his reception was, on the whole, auspicious. On both sides, indeed, the hope of agreement on points of religion disappeared with the first words upon the subject. Mendoza offered in London the Emperor's mediation with the Pope. He received for answer that he might spare his labour. 'The disposition of the King's Highness was immutably against the said Bishop.' The


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/107

 1537.] in his opening interview spoke to Wyatt of the sickness of England, from which he trusted it would soon be recovered. Wyatt replied that England was conscious only of having cast off a chronic sickness which had lasted too long.

On the other hand, Charles, with equal resolution, declined a theological discussion, to which Henry had challenged him. 'If your Majesty,' wrote Wyatt, 'would hearken to the reconciling with the Bishop of Rome, he would be glad to travel in it. But if not, yet he will go through with you, and will continue ever in that mind, the same notwithstanding. And like as he is not lettred, so will he not charge your Majesty with the argument of the Bishop's state, but leave it alone to them that it toucheth.'

On these terms, apparently satisfactory, the entente cordiale was restored between England and Spain. It was threatened by a cloud in November, when a truce was concluded between Charles and Francis; but the light suspicion was dispelled by assurances that if the truce was followed by a peace, 'the King of England should be in the same as a principal contrahent;' 'that nothing should be therein concluded which might redound to his dishonour or miscontentment.' The


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/108

88 promised stability: by skilful management it might be even more strongly cemented.

The English council were now busily engaged in selecting a successor for Jane Seymour. Mendoza, in the name of the Emperor, proposed the Infanta of Portugal. 'The offer was thankfully taken,' but was from some cause unwelcome, and died in its first mention. Cromwell had thrown out feelers in the various European courts. Madame de Longueville was thought of, if she was not already destined for another throne. Hutton, the English agent in Flanders, recommended several ladies as more or less desirable—a daughter of the Lord of Brederode, the Countess of Egmont, Anne of Cleves (of the latter, however, adding, that she was said to be plain), and finally, and with especial emphasis, Christina of Denmark, the young relict of the Duke of Milan, and the niece of the Emperor. The Duchess was tall, handsome, and, though a widow, not more than sixteen. The alliance would be honourable in itself: it would be a link reconnecting England with the Empire; and, more important still, Charles in his consent would condone before the world the affront of the divorce of Catherine. One obstacle only presented itself, which, with skilful management, might perhaps prove a fresh recommendation. In the eyes of all persons of the Roman communion the marriage with Catherine was of course considered valid, and the lady stood


text:
User:Bhawani Gautam

This is user Bhawani Gautam

title: User:Bhawani Gautam


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/109

1538.] towards her aunt's husband within the degrees of affinity in which marriage was unlawful without a dispensation from the Pope. This certainly was a difficulty; but it was possible that Charles's anxiety for the connection might induce him to break the knot, and break with the Papacy. On the Duchess of Milan, therefore, the choice of the English Government rested; and in January Sir Thomas Wyatt was directed to suggest to the Emperor, as of his own motion, that his niece would be a fit wife for the King. The hint was caught at with gracious eagerness. Mendoza instantly received instructions to make the proposal in form, and, as if this single union was insufficient, to desire at the same time that Henry would bestow the Lady Mary on Don Louis of Portugal. Henry acquiesced, and, seeing Charles so forward, added to his acquiescence the yet further suggestion that the Prince of Wales should be betrothed to the Emperor's daughter, and Elizabeth to one of the many sons of the King of the Romans. Both princes appeared to be overflowing with cordiality. Charles repeated his promises, that when peace was concluded with France, the King of England should be a contracting party. The Queen Regent wrote to Cromwell, thanking him for his zeal in forwarding the Emperor's interests with his master. The Duchess of Milan sat for her picture to Holbein for Henry's cabinet, and professed for herself that she


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/110

90 was wholly at her uncle's disposal. A story passes current with popular historians, that the Duchess of Milan, when Henry proposed for her, replied that she had but one head; if she had two, one should be at his Majesty's service. The less active imagination of contemporaries was contented with reporting that she had said that the English ministers need not trouble themselves to make the marriage; 'they would lose their labours, for she minded not to fix her heart that way.' Sir Thomas Wriothesley, who was then resident at Brussels, thought it worth his while to ask her whether these words had really been used by her.'M. Ambassador,' she replied, 'I thank God He hath given me a better stay of myself than to be of so light sort. I assure you, that neither those words that you have spoken, nor any like to them, have passed at any time from my mouth; and so I pray you report for me.'Wriothesley took courage upon this answer, and asked what was her real inclination in the matter.At this she blushed exceedingly. 'As for mine inclination,' quoth she, 'what should I say? You know I am at the Emperor's commandment.' 'Yea, madam,' quoth Wriothesley; 'but this matter is of such nature, that there must be a concurrence between his commandment and your consent, or else you may percase repent it when it shall be too late. Your answer is such as may serve both for your modesty and for my satisfaction; and yet, if it were a little plainer, I could be the better contented.' With that she smiled, and again said, 'You know I am the Emperor's poor servant, and must follow his pleasure.' 'Marry,' quoth Wriothesley, 'then I may hope to be among the Englishmen that shall be first acquainted with my new mistress, for the Emperor hath instantly desired it. Oh, madam!' quoth he, 'how happy shall you be if it be your chance to be matched with my master. If God send you that hap, you shall be matched with the most gentle gentleman that liveth; his nature so benign and pleasant, that I think till this day no man hath heard many angry words pass his lips. As God shall help me, if he were no King, I think, an you saw him, you would say, that for his virtue, gentleness, wisdom, experience, goodliness of person, and all other qualities meet to be in a prince, he were worthy before all others to be made a king.' … She smiled, and Wriothesley thought would have laughed out, had not her gravity forbidden it … She said she knew his Majesty was a good and noble prince. Her honest countenance, he added, and the few words that she wisely spake, together with that which he knew by her chamberers and servants, made him to think there could be no doubt of her.'—State Papers, vol. viii. p. 146. Commissioners


text:
User:Ineuw/notes10

identité-unifié

alternatif-declaré

anti-anonyme

wikipedia-en

commons-actif

wikisource-fr

wikisource-en

wsadmin-en

lire-presque-tout

niveau-de-francais

niveau-de-hébreu

traduction-hong-ang

passionné-de-histoire

niveau-d'anglais

archéologie

art-et-histoire-del'art

en-glucides

gourd-et-la-sandale

l'histoire-sociale

l'urbanisme

la-science

océans

paléontologie

transport-en-commun

évolution

mécanicien

domaine-public

des-measures

title: User:Ineuw/notes10


text:
Author:Ernest Myers

Works

 * The Defence of Rome and Other Poems (1880)
 * The Judgement of Prometheus (1886)
 * Lord Althorp (1890)
 * Gathered Poems (1904)

Translations

 * The Extant Odes of Pindar (1874)
 * Iliad of Homer with Andrew Lang and Walter Leaf (1891)
 * Excerpted as "His Reply to the Envoys" in The World's Famous Orations
 * "From Pindar's Fourth Pythian Ode", by Pindar, in Masterpieces of Greek Literature (1902)

title: Author:Ernest Myers


text: Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/15


text:
Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/17

 to their gods to attempt to enclose their emblems in an edifice surrounded by walls, and erected by mortal hands; the forest was their temple, and a rough, unhewn stone their altar. They worshipped Tecanus, another name for Jupiter, the god of thunder; Mercury and Mars, under the appellation of Teutates and Hesus; Apollo, whom they designated Belēnus; Diana, as Arduine; and Andate, the goddess of victory.

Besides these—who may be regarded as their superior deities, they had a great number of inferior ones. Each wood, fountain, lake, and mountain had its tutelary genius, whom they were accustomed to invoke with sacrifice and prayer. The priests of this terrible idolatry were divided into three separate orders, under the command of a chief, who was elected for life, whose power was unlimited, and who alone was suffered to pronounce the fearful sentence of excommunication, which deprived the victim of sacerdotal wrath of all civil rights.

The first of these divisions consisted, properly speaking, of Druids only; they were the interpreters of the laws, which they never permitted to be committed to writing, the instructors of youth, and the judges of the people—a tremendous power to be lodged in the hands of any peculiar class, but doubly dangerous when the ignorance, cruelty, and superstition of the race they tyrannised over are duly considered.

The second class, the Eubates, may be looked upon in the light of the working clergy; they were charged with the sacrifices and divinations. The last and inferior division was those of the Bards, whose duty it was to preserve in verse the memory of any remarkable event; to celebrate the triumph of their heroes; and, by their exhortation and songs, excite the chiefs and people to deeds of courage and daring on the day of battle.

It is impossible not to be struck by the profound cunning which presided over the organisation of this tremendous priesthood, which concentrated all authority in its hands. Its ministers placed themselves between man and the altar, permitting his approach only in mystery and gloom. They wrought upon his imagination by the sacrifice of human life, and the most terrible denunciations of the anger of their gods on all who opposed them. As the instructors of youth, they moulded the pliant mind, and fashioned it to their purpose; as the judges of the people, there was no appeal against their decisions, for none but the Druids could pronounce authoritatively what was the law, there being no written code to refer to; they alone possessed the right to recompense or punish: thus the present and future welfare of their followers alike depended upon them.

The severest penalty inflicted by the Druids was the interdiction of the sacrifice to those who had offended them. Woe to the unhappy wretch on whom the awful sentence fell! He ceased to be considered a human being. Like the beast of the forest, his life was at the mercy of any one who chose to take it. He lost all civil rights, and could neither inherit land nor sue for the recovery of debts; every one was at liberty to spoil his property; even his nearest kindred fled from him in horror and aversion, as from the pest.

With such a tremendous weapon at their command, no wonder the Druids were all powerful. We have since seen it used, in comparatively modern times, by the ministers of a purer and more enlightened faith, with a similar effect.

It is now time to give some account of the dogmas of this extinct superstition, once the general faith of Britain. Like the monks of the middle ages, the Druids of the higher orders lived in community in the remote depths of the vast gloomy forests, where they celebrated their rites. In these retreats they initiated the youthful aspirants for the sacerdoce, who frequently passed a novitiate of twenty years