text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Fox-hunting

FOX-HUNTING, the chase of the fox with horses and hounds, as a recreation. This sport arose in England with the Restoration, when changes in customs and agricultural conditions caused the disappearance of falconry, and has become surrounded by codes of social usage and of legal enactments. It flourished most in the south-central counties of England, and in Ireland, and some of the principal organizations or “hunts” as the Belvoir, Quorn, Pytchley and Cottesmore, were founded early in the 17th century. A “hunt” is an association for the promotion and regular practice of the sport in a certain district. It acquires a pack or several packs of fox-hounds (q.v.), kennels and perhaps a club-house, is directed by a “master of foxhounds,” and served by paid employees, the principal of whom are the “huntsman” who arranges and leads the sport for the day, and the “whippers-in,” who see that the dogs work properly. These officials, and the sportsmen themselves wear “pink” (that is scarlet) coats when in the field. The expenses are paid theoretically by annual subscriptions, eked out by casual subscriptions for temporary privileges, but usually they must be supplemented by a patron, — probably the “M. F. H.,” who has inherited the dignity and its responsibilities from ancestors who founded the hunt. Anyone may join in the chase, and at Melton Mowbray and other famous “meets” large numbers of outsiders are often present. In these districts foxes are carefully preserved, and the abode and habits of each family of them are

studied with reference to the autumnal and winter sport. At the appointed time the hunters, men and women, mounted and accompanied by a pack of from 25 to 40 hounds, are led by the huntsman toward the place where he expects to “find” a fox. There the dogs are loosed, and range about searching for the scent-traces in the air or on the ground left by the recent passage of the animal. When one finds a trail he gives tongue, the others come to his aid and the pack dash away following the scent. With a bugle-signal or cry of “Gone away!” the hunt follows as straight and fast as possible, keeping to roads, lanes and gates where possible, but jumping fence and riding over grain-fields and meadows where needful, the hunt paying such damages as follow. This requires a horse of great speed and leaping power, and has developed the English thoroughbred hunter. When anyone catches sight of the fox he shouts “View! halloa!”; and the ambition of all riders is to keep close to the racing animals and be on the spot, or “in at the death,” when the fox is seized. It is then the duty of the huntsman, or the nearest rider, to save the body of the fox from the dogs, cut off its “brush” (tail), “pads” (feet), and “mask” (head) to be given as trophies to the foremost riders. The remainder of the fox is cut up and given to the dogs on the spot. Instead of running “straight away” and leading a long chase the fox will often take refuge in a drain or other hole, unless it has been “stopped.” This is called “going to earth,” and he must then be ousted by the aid of a fox-terrier.

Fox-hunting has been carried wherever Englishmen have settled, but has found few parts of the world favorable to it. In some countries as on the North American prairies, in California, and also in Argentina, similar methods are adapted to the chase of other animals, as wolves or kangaroos. In the southern and eastern United States, however, where foxes abound, true fox-hunting has flourished ever since colonial days, when each man brought his own hound or hounds to the assembly; and is still pursued by several established clubs in Virginia, Maryland and southern Pennsylvania, where the nature of the country and the agricultural habits of the people favor it. These clubs employ a modified form of hound better adapted to the faster and rougher work required of it than would be the English breed. A special strain, the Magnes hound, has been fostered by the Maryland clubs, the foremost of which is the Elkridge. More nearly conforming to the English models is the establishment and hunting of the Meadowbrook Hunt, on Long Island, N. Y., where, in a level open country, largely occupied by extensive estates and within easy reach of New York, the sport has flourished since about 1876, and is likely to be long maintained. The serious conditions of the great world war, and development of the feeling that it is not altogether manly for a crowd of human beings to chase to the death one small timid animal, have led to a decline in the “sport.”

An extensive literature has grown up about this subject, and many thousands of titles would be required for its bibliography. A good general view may be obtained by reading the volumes devoted to the sport in the English

Library’ and in the American ‘Sportsman's Library.’ Consult also ‘Encyclopædia of Sport’ (1897).


text: Template:WT letter/date

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

title: Template:WT letter/date


text:
Template:WT letter/doc

Usage
Creates a link to a letter published in the pulp magazine Weird Tales. Intended for use in the Author namespace.

Parameters

 * : Compulsory. The volume number of the issue with the letter.
 * : Compulsory. The issue number of the issue with the letter.
 * : Optional. The anchor used for the letter on the page.
 * : Optional. The title of the letter.
 * : Optional. The name of the author of the letter. This may be wikilinked.

title: Template:WT letter/doc


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Askwith, George Ranken Askwith, 1st Baron

ASKWITH, GEORGE RANKEN ASKWITH, (1861-), English lawyer and civil servant, was born at Morley, Yorks, Feb. 17 1861, and was educated at Marlborough and Brasenose College, Oxford. He was called to the bar in 1886 (K.C. 1908), and in 1899 was one of the counsel in the Venezuelan arbitration case. In 1907 he entered the railways section of the Board of Trade as assistant secretary, and in 1909 was appointed comptroller-general of the Commercial, Labour and Statistical Departments of the Board of Trade. He acted as arbitrator in many industrial disputes, and in 1911 was created K.C.B. in recognition of his valuable work in that capacity. In 1911 he became chairman of the recently constituted Industrial Council, in 1912 he made a special report for the Government on the Canadian labour laws, and in 1915 was appointed chairman of the Government Arbitration Committee under the Munitions of War Acts, holding this post till 1917. On the Committee of Production he did important work for the Government. In 1919 he retired from his position as chief industrial commissioner, and was raised to the peerage. His wife, whom he married in 1908, was a daughter of Archibald Peel, nephew of the statesman Sir Robert Peel, and the widow of Maj. Henry

Graham (d. 1907). During the World War she was an active and energetic member of the Central Committee on Women's Employment, and was created C.B.E. in 1918.


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/145

 invaded the dominion of the Amazons and carried her off, the consequence of which was a counter-invasion of Attica by the Amazons. After four months of war peace was made, and Antiope left with Theseus as a peace-offering. According to another account, she had joined the Amazons against him because he had been untrue to her in desiring to marry Phaedra. She is said to have been killed by another Amazon, Molpadia, a rival in her affection for Theseus. Elsewhere it was believed that he had himself killed her, and fulfilled an oracle to that effect (Hyginus, Fab. 241). By Theseus she had a son, the well-known Hippolytus (Plutarch, Theseus). ANTIOQUIA, an interior department of the republic of Colombia, lying S. of Bolivar, W. of the Magdalena river, and E. of Cauca. Area, 22,870 sq. m.; pop. (est. 1899) 464,887. The greater part of its territory lies between the Magdalena and Cauca rivers and includes the northern end of the Central Cordillera. The country is covered with valuable forests, and its mineral wealth renders it one of the most important mining regions of the republic. The capital, Medellin (est. pop. 53,000 in 1902), is a thriving mining centre, 4822 ft. above sea-level, and 125 m. from Puerto Berrió on the Magdalena. Other important towns are Manizales (18,000) in the extreme south, the commercial centre of a rich gold and grazing region; Antioquia, the old capital, on the Cauca; and Puerto Berrió on the Magdalena, from which a railway has been started to the capital. ANTIPAROS (anc. Oliaros), an island of the kingdom of Greece, in the modern eparchy of Naxos, separated by a strait (about 1 m. wide at the narrowest point) from the west coast of Paros. It is 7 m. long by 3 broad, and contains about 700 inhabitants, most of whom live in Kastro, a village on the north coast, and are employed in agriculture and fishing. Formerly piracy was common. The only remarkable feature in the island is a stalactite cavern on the south coast, which is reached by a narrow passage broken by two steep and dangerous descents which are accomplished by the aid of rope-ladders. The grotto itself, which is about 150 ft. by 100, and 50 ft. high (not all can be seen from any part, and probably some portions are still unexplored), shows many remarkable examples of stalactite formations and incrustations of dazzling brilliance. It is not mentioned by ancient writers; the first western traveller to visit it was the marquis de Nointel (ambassador of Louis XIV. to the Porte) who descended it with a numerous suite and held high mass there on Christmas day 1673. There is, however, in the entrance of the cavern an inscription recording the names of visitors in ancient times.

ANTIPATER (398?–319 ), Macedonian general, and regent of Macedonia during Alexander’s Eastern expedition (334–323). He had previously (346) been sent as ambassador by Philip to Athens and negotiated peace after the battle of Chaeroneia (338). About 332 he set out against the rebellious tribes of Thrace; but before this insurrection was quelled, the Spartan king Agis had risen against Macedonia. Having settled affairs in Thrace as well as he could, Antipater hastened to the south, and in a battle near Megalopolis (331) gained a complete victory over the insurgents (Diodorus xvii. 62). His regency was greatly troubled by the ambition of Olympias, mother of Alexander, and he was nominally superseded by Craterus. But, on the death of Alexander in 323, he was, by the first partition of the empire, left in command of Macedonia, and in the Lamian War, at the battle of Crannon (322), crushed the Greeks who had attempted to re-assert their independence. Later in the same year he and Craterus were engaged in a war against the Aetolians, when the news arrived from Asia which induced Antipater to conclude peace with them; for Antigonus reported that Perdiccas contemplated making himself sole master of the empire. Antipater and Craterus accordingly prepared for war against Perdiccas, and allied themselves with Ptolemy, the governor of Egypt. Antipater crossed over into Asia in 321; and while still in Syria, he received information that Perdiccas had been murdered by his own soldiers. Craterus fell in battle against Eumenes (Diodorus xviii. 25-39). Antipater, now sole regent, made several new regulations, and having quelled a mutiny of his troops and commissioned Antigonus to continue the war against Eumenes and the other partisans of Perdiccas, returned to Macedonia, where he arrived in 320 (Justin xiii. 6). Soon after he was seized by an illness which terminated his active career, 319. Passing over his son Cassander, he appointed the aged Polyperchon regent, a measure which gave rise to much confusion and ill-feeling (Diodorus xvii., xviii). ANTIPHANES, the most important writer of the Middle Attic comedy with the exception of Alexis, lived from about 408 to 334 He was apparently a foreigner who settled in Athens, where he began to write about 387. He was extremely prolific: more than 200 of the 365 (or 260) comedies attributed to him are known to us from the titles and considerable fragments preserved in Athenaeus. They chiefly deal with matters connected with the table, but contain many striking sentiments.

ANTIPHILUS, a Greek painter, of the age of Alexander. He worked for Philip of Macedon and Ptolemy I. of Egypt. Thus he was a contemporary of Apelles, whose rival he is said to have been, but he seems to have worked in quite another style. Quintilian speaks of his facility: the descriptions of his works which have come down to us show that he excelled in light and shade, in genre representations, and in caricature.

ANTIPHON, of Rhamnus in Attica, the earliest of the “ten” Attic orators, was born in 480 He took an active part in political affairs at Athens, and, as a zealous supporter of the oligarchical party, was largely responsible for the establishment of the Four Hundred in 411 (see ); on the restoration of the democracy he was accused of treason and condemned to death. Thucydides (viii. 68) expresses a very high opinion of him. Antiphon may be regarded as the founder of political oratory, but he never addressed the people himself except on the occasion of his trial. Fragments of his speech then delivered in defence of his policy (called  ) have been edited by J. Nicole (1907) from an Egyptian papyrus. His chief business was that of a professional speech-writer ( ), for those who felt incompetent to conduct their own cases—as all disputants were obliged to do—without expert assistance. Fifteen of Antiphon’s speeches are extant: twelve are mere school exercises on fictitious cases, divided into tetralogies, each consisting of two speeches for prosecution and defence—accusation, defence, reply, counter-reply; three refer to actual legal processes. All deal with cases of homicide ( ). Antiphon is also said to have composed a  or art of Rhetoric.

ANTIPHONY (Gr. , and  , a voice), a species of psalmody in which the choir or congregation, being divided into two parts, sing alternately. The peculiar structure of the Hebrew psalms renders it probable that the antiphonal method originated in the service of the ancient Jewish Church. According to the historian Socrates, its introduction into Christian worship was due to Ignatius (died 115 ), who in a vision had seen the angels singing in alternate choirs. In the Latin Church it was not practised until more than two centuries later, when it was introduced by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, who compiled an antiphonary, or collection of words suitable for antiphonal singing. The antiphonary still in use in the Roman Catholic Church was compiled by Gregory the Great (590 ). ANTIPODES (Gr. , opposed to, and  , feet), a term applied strictly to any two peoples or places on opposite sides of the earth, so situated that a line drawn from the one to the other passes through the centre of the globe and forms a true diameter. Any two places having this relation—as London and, approximately, Antipodes Island, near New Zealand— must be distant from each other by 180° of longitude, and the

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/145


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antioquia

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antioquia


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antipater

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antipater


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antiphon

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antiphon


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antiphony

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antiphony


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Asquith, Herbert Henry

ASQUITH, HERBERT HENRY (1852-), English statesman (see ), had been confirmed in power as Prime Minister by the general election of Jan. 1910, but the political situation resulting from it was still one of unexampled difficulty (see ). On several occasions during the ensuing parliamentary session, he put off importunate questioners, with regard to the policy of the Ministry, by saying that they had better “wait and see.” The phrase was remembered, and was often used by critics in subsequent years, especially during the World War, as a compendious description of what they considered to be the procrastinating attitude of the Prime Minister and his Government. But there was no procrastination in Mr. Asquith's attitude in the autumn, as soon as the conference arranged between the opposing political leaders on the constitutional crisis had definitely failed. He and his Cabinet at once took decisive measures to get it settled in their own sense. On Nov. 15 — the day Parliament reassembled for its autumn session — they advised the Crown to dissolve, but only on the understanding that “in the event of the policy of the Government being approved by an adequate majority in the new House of Commons His Majesty will be ready to exercise his constitutional powers, which may involve the prerogative of creating peers, if needed, to secure that effect shall be given to the decision of the country.” The King reluctantly consented, and the dissolution was announced on Nov. 18; but the terms of the understanding which had been arrived at between the Crown and its advisers were not revealed till the crisis in the following summer. The second general election of 1910 was held in Dec.; and the verdict of the preceding Jan. was almost precisely confirmed.

Having, with the aid of Labour and the Nationalists, who were both thoroughly with him on the constitutional issue, a clear majority of about 120, the Prime Minister went straight ahead with the Parliament bill, which had two main objects: to take from the Lords all power of either rejecting or amending a Money bill, and to provide that a bill passed in three successive sessions by the Commons should become law without the Lords' assent. He carried the second reading in March with the closure, defeated the stubborn resistance of the Unionists in committee by aid of the “kangaroo” closure, and obtained the third reading, on May 15 by an unbroken majority of 121. He did not conceal in the debate that the first use to which the new powers conferred by the bill on the Commons would be put was to pass the Irish Home Rule bill, followed by the rest of the controversial Liberal programme. When the Lords, after allowing the second reading to pass, introduced by an enormous majority an amendment (amongst others) providing for the submission to a popular vote of certain fundamental measures, he forthwith announced, in a letter to Mr. Balfour on the day (July 20) on which the amended bill was read a third time in the Lords, that the Government would ask the House of Commons to disagree with the amendments, adding: —

This, the first public announcement of the King's consent to the creation of sufficient peers to pass the bill, produced an explosion among the Opposition; and the Unionist hotheads, among whom Lord Hugh Cecil and Mr. F. E. Smith (afterwards Lord Birkenhead) were conspicuous, shouted “Traitor” at Mr. Asquith in the House of Commons, and refused to let him deliver the speech in which he was to explain his policy. But he had effected his object of dividing the Unionist party; and eventually a sufficient number of peers followed their leaders in bowing to force majeure and allowing the bill to pass rather than risk the degradation of their House by an unlimited creation (see ). Mr. Asquith welcomed the vote of censure which the Opposition promoted in the House of Commons; gave

an account of the understanding entered into with the King before the last dissolution; pointed out that the Parliament bill had been twice approved by the electorate in principle and once in its substantial details, that there was no alternative Government possible and no responsible minister at its head would advise another general election with any hope of a different result. The vote of censure was repelled by the usual Government majority; and, though Mr. Asquith's course had profoundly exasperated his opponents, the direct and unflinching manner in which he had carried his policy through raised his own parliamentary reputation and strengthened his Government.

Having cleared the way by the Parliament Act, which he described as “a landmark in political development,” the Prime Minister pressed forward, by frequent use of the closure, in the three following sessions — of 1912, 1913, and 1914 — the two bills on which Liberal partisans had specially set their heart, the Irish Home Rule bill, and the Welsh Disestablishment bill. Of the Home Rule bill he took the main charge himself, advocating it as being strictly in accordance with the spirit and tendency of imperial development. In July 1912 he went across to Dublin, and at a great Nationalist meeting in the Theatre Royal he described the intention of the Government to be to unite the English and Irish democracies. While speaking as a rule respectfully of Ulster, and offering to strengthen the safeguards for her welfare contained in the bill, he resolutely refused, till the autumn of 1913, to consider the possibility of her exclusion even for a time. But after the signing of the Ulster covenant, the enrolment and drilling of thousands of volunteers, and the establishment by Sir Edward Carson of a “provisional Government” — with none of which operations did he think it wise to interfere — he realized that, unless Ulster were placated, the new Home Rule constitution could not be set up without something like civil war. Accordingly, at Ladybank, in Oct. 1913, he said that he desired a settlement by consent, and invited a frank interchange of views; but he stipulated that there must be a subordinate Irish Parliament and an executive responsible to it in Dublin, and that no insuperable bar must be erected to Irish unity. In pursuance of this policy, he announced early in the following March, when moving for the third time the second reading of the Home Rule bill, that the Government would propose that any county in Ulster might vote itself out of the bill for a period of six years. This did not at all satisfy the Unionists, who demanded that Ulster should be omitted till Parliament otherwise ordered. At this moment occurred the incident at the Curragh, where military officers, when questioned on their views, offered their resignations rather than undertake military operations against Ulster. The War Office prevailed on them to withdraw their resignations by an assurance that there was no intention of crushing political opposition to Home Rule; a kind of bargain which the Liberal party and the Liberal press vehemently condemned and the Government itself repudiated. General Seely, the War Minister, immediately resigned, and Mr. Asquith met this situation by himself assuming the seals of the Secretary of State. He laid it down that it was not right to ask an officer what he would do in a remote and hypothetical contingency, still less could it be right for an officer to ask a Government to give him any assurance. Such a claim, once admitted, would put the Government and Parliament at the mercy of the military. He would administer the War Office, he told his constituents, in the spirit of Chatham, who said, “The army will hear nothing of politics from me, and in return I expect to hear nothing of politics from the army.” These events raised passions on both sides, but the Prime Minister refused to be moved from his offer. The amending bill was introduced in the Lords, but was transformed by Unionist amendments into one for the permanent exclusion of Ulster — a change which the Government refused to accept. Mr. Asquith then, in a final effort for settlement by consent, risked his popularity with Radicals and Labour men by advising the King to invite the leaders of the English and Irish parties to a small conference at Buckingham Palace. When this conference, too, after a four days' session, failed on July 24, he was relieved of his

difficulty as to the next step by the outbreak of the World War.

In no other domestic measures of his Government during this period had Mr. Asquith taken so prominent and personal a part as in the Parliament Act and the Home Rule bill. But he was, of course, mainly responsible for the drastic use of the closure, in various forms, without which, indeed, it might have been impossible to get the most contentious of the Government bills through at all. He was active in efforts, first to avert, and then to compose the great coal strike of the early spring of 1912. From the third week in Feb. till the middle of March he was in constant conference with both owners and miners; and when conciliation failed he finally introduced and passed a Coal-mines (minimum wage) bill, which brought about a settlement at Easter. With the transport strike in the summer of 1912 he declined to interfere. His various franchise bills came to naught owing to the difficulties introduced by the claim of a large body of women to the suffrage. Though he was prepared to leave that thorny question to be decided freely by the House, he was himself, unlike the majority of his colleagues, opposed to giving women the vote, and was, accordingly, in the last few years before the war, frequently subjected to rudeness and insult by the militant section of suffragists. While in the domestic legislation which he promoted, especially after he was compelled by his own party's electoral losses in 1910 to rely largely on Nationalist and Labour votes, Mr. Asquith leaned to the Radical side, in foreign and imperial policy and in matters of defence he acted up to the Liberal Imperialist principles of which he had been the standard-bearer while in opposition. He took a keen interest in his duties as chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence; he strongly supported Lord Haldane in his efforts to make the army more efficient as a striking force; he steadily backed first Mr. McKenna, and afterwards Mr. Churchill, in their extensive programmes, which increased the navy estimates from some £32,000,000 in 1908 to nearly £52,000,000 in 1914; he was the first Prime Minister to preside in a colonial, now become an imperial, conference; and while, owing to his Free-Trade principles, he rejected colonial or imperial preference, he pushed forward organized schemes for imperial defence. The experience of the World War, however, seemed to show that he made a mistake in accepting the Declaration of London. In foreign affairs he gave consistent and strenuous support to Sir Edward Grey, who had continued to develop the national policy previously laid down by Mr. Balfour and Lord Lansdowne. This was fully recognized by the Opposition, who supported him on these questions against the sporadic attacks of Radicals, Nationalists, and Labour men. Whenever Mr. Asquith had to speak to the world as the nation's mouthpiece, in Parliament or at Guildhall, he produced a weighty impression by his clearness and candour in statement, and his dignified and sonorous phraseology.

When the world crisis came in the end of July 1914, he had to translate speech into action, with a hesitating Cabinet, and a still more hesitating party, behind him. He, like Sir Edward Grey, had been lulled into comparative optimism by the speciously reasonable attitude of Germany in the Balkan negotiations; and he was confronted by a strong section in the Cabinet, including Mr. Lloyd George, who at first refused to see cause, in the threat to France, for British armed intervention. On the other hand, he had the tender of support from the Unionists in continuation of their foreign policy since 1905. In the end, the violation of Luxemburg and Belgium by Germany solved all his difficulties, and enabled him to preserve his Cabinet intact save for the perhaps inevitable resignations of Lord Morley and Mr. Burns; but even before this happened it was becoming clear that he and Sir Edward Grey would take their stand by the side of France. His public language was eminently worthy of the occasion. On July 30 he told the House of Commons that the Amending bill must be postponed. The issues of peace and war, he said, were hanging in the balance; it was of vital importance that Great Britain, who had no direct interests at stake, should present a united front, and speak and act with the authority of an undivided nation. He left to the Foreign Secretary the duty of explaining the diplomatic position on Monday Aug. 3; but

he himself moved, on Aug. 5, the day after war had begun, the first vote of credit for £100,000,000, maintaining that “the war has been forced upon us.” The fight was, first, to fulfil a solemn international obligation; secondly, to vindicate the principle that small nationalities were not to be crushed, in defiance of international good faith, by the arbitrary will of a strong and overmastering power. No nation, he said, ever entered into a great struggle with a clearer conscience and a stronger conviction that it was fighting for principles vital to the civilized world.

In response to a public demand, peremptorily voiced in the press, he now brought Lord Kitchener, who was on the point of starting back, after a brief visit home, to resume his duties as British agent in Egypt, into the Cabinet as Minister of War, surrendering to him the seals which he had held himself for over four months, and he gave him a wide discretion in conducting the war by land. The conduct of the war remained ultimately with the Cabinet, but its day-to-day direction was practically carried on by Mr. Asquith, Lord Kitchener, and Mr. Churchill, with the assistance of their technical advisers. As Prime Minister, too, Mr. Asquith must be accorded his full share in the important measures taken by the Cabinet at this time, such as the financial moratorium, the prompt despatch of the expeditionary force, the enrolment of Kitchener's army, the glad acceptance of colonial help, the decision to bring over native troops from India, and the Defence of the Realm Act. He, however, strained his relations with the Unionists by determining to pass the Home Rule and Welsh Disestablishment bills under the Parliament Act, only providing that neither should come into effect till after the war, and that special provision should be made for Ulster, which should in no circumstances be coerced. He undertook a series of speeches in the autumn, notable alike for patriotic vigour and for lofty eloquence, in order to educate the nation as regards the objects and necessity of the war, and to stimulate recruiting. At the Guildhall on Sept. 4 he said that this was not merely a material but a spiritual conflict, and recalled how England had in the Napoleonic Wars responded to Pitt's dying appeal to her to save Europe by her example. At Edinburgh, on Sept. 18, he said that the German creed of material force was a purblind philosophy, and that, while the British task might take months or years, the economic, monetary, and military and naval position was encouraging. At Dublin, on Sept. 25, he appealed to Ireland to take her due share in a war which was being fought in the interests of small nations. At Cardiff, on Oct. 2, he revealed the fact that, in 1912, the Cabinet had formally notified the German Government that Great Britain would “neither make nor join in any unprovoked attack on Germany,” but that Germany had demanded in response a British pledge of absolute neutrality if she were engaged in war — a pledge which, of course, Britain could not possibly give. He finished up this series of orations by a resolute speech at Guildhall on Lord Mayor's day; when he told the city that it would be a long-drawn-out struggle, but that England would not sheathe the sword until Belgium had recovered all and more than all that she had sacrificed, until France was adequately secured against the menace of aggression, until the rights of the smaller nationalities were placed on an unassailable foundation, until the military dominion of Prussia was fully and finally destroyed. On Nov. 25 he formed a war council, consisting of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary, the Indian Secretary and Lord Haldane, in addition to Lord Kitchener, Mr. Churchill, and himself; but the main responsibility still rested on the last three, and the naval and military experts attended in a somewhat undefined position.

As the fervour of the early months of the war died away, many troublesome questions embarrassed Mr. Asquith and his Government. Besides the anxious problem of the Dardanelles expedition, he had to consider whether the system of compulsory service, hateful to the traditions of the Liberal party, had not become inevitable; how to eradicate spying, and to what extent to intern aliens; how to deal with the problem of the liquor trade and traffic, which seriously interfered with necessary production;

how to prevent the occurrence during war of industrial disputes, which frequently broke out in the first half of 1915. Drink and strikes had a close bearing on the problem which became specially urgent in April, the absolute necessity of an enormous increase in munitions of war. The Times revealed the perilous shortage at the front; Mr. Lloyd George dilated upon it in the House; but Mr. Asquith, in a speech at Newcastle-on-Tyne on April 30, which was mainly devoted to emphasizing the importance of matériel in this war and to encouraging miners, shipbuilders, engineers, iron workers, and dockers to further efforts, raised a storm of criticism by denying that the operations in the field had been crippled because of a want of ammunition.

The uneasiness in the country immediately increased, and there was a pronounced demand for broadening the basis of Government. On May 12 Mr. Asquith repudiated the idea that any such step was in contemplation; but a week later, the quarrel which had developed between Mr. Churchill and Lord Fisher at the Admiralty convinced him that there must be a change, and he invited the Unionists, the Labour party, and the leaders of the two Irish parties to join him in office, by forming a Coalition Ministry. From all whom he invited, but Mr. Redmond, he received acceptances, and he was able to find places in his new Cabinet for them without excluding any important previous colleague of his own, except Lord Haldane, whose German affinities had offended public opinion. He gained the services of many powerful men among the Unionists — Mr. Bonar Law, Lord Lansdowne, Mr. Balfour, Lord Curzon, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Long, Mr. F. E. Smith, Lord Robert Cecil, Lord Selborne; of Mr. Henderson and Mr. Brace from the Labour party; and of Sir Edward Carson, the Ulster leader. But he kept the premiership in his own hands, and retained Sir Edward Grey at the Foreign Office, and Lord Kitchener at the War Office. He explained his decision in the House of Commons in these words: —

He emphasized the facts (1) that in the Coalition no surrender was implied of convictions on either side; (2) that there was no change in national policy, which was “to pursue this war at any cost to a victorious issue.” His Coalition Government made a good start. He constituted a new Ministry of Munitions, presided over by Mr. Lloyd George, who had by this time impressed the public as being the most resolute and determined of his colleagues; he and his Cabinet issued a great war loan; they introduced a measure for national registration; they imposed an enormously increased taxation; and there was established in the Cabinet a system of pooling salaries, so that every minister should receive the same amount. In June Mr. Asquith paid a four days' visit to the British front in France; and in July he attended a conference at Calais in which British statesmen and generals met French statesmen and generals in order to coordi- nate Allied action — the first of many conferences of the kind. On the adjournment of Parliament on July 28 he said that the war had become a struggle of endurance.

The formation of the Coalition did not stem the agitation for compulsory service; and in the autumn Mr. Asquith's Government appointed Lord Derby director of recruiting, in the hope that his energy would produce such satisfactory results as to obviate the necessity of resorting to compulsion. But Mr. Asquith stated that, if Lord Derby failed to bring in sufficient single men, he would come to the House without any hesitation and recommend some form of legal obligation. Lord Derby had a considerable but not an adequate success; and Mr. Asquith was driven to introduce compulsion in 1916, at first in a somewhat modified form, but later as universally applicable to males between the ages of 18 and 41. These measures caused the resignation of Sir John Simon, the Home Secretary. This

was the third loss of a colleague which the Prime Minister had suffered since the Coalition. Sir Edward Carson, the Attorney-General, had resigned in the autumn owing to the muddles of ministerial policy in the Balkans, and Mr. Churchill because of his exclusion from the immediate direction of the war. All three became occasionally keen critics of their former colleagues, whose delays in this vital matter of universal service weakened and discredited them in the country.

Mr. Asquith took a further step early in 1916 in the direction of close cooperation between the Allies by attending, along with Sir E. Grey, Mr. Lloyd George, Lord Kitchener and Gen. Sir William Robertson, an Allied conference in Paris, representative not only of England and France, but of Russia, Italy, Japan, Belgium, Serbia, and Portugal. Thence he went on to Rome, where he visited the Pope, and made a speech in the Capitol declaring the solidarity of Italy, France, and England at that critical moment of the world's history; afterwards proceeding to the Italian headquarters, where he was received by King Victor Emanuel and Gen. Cadorna. Later, in June, he and his Government arranged an economic conference, also in Paris, which provided for measures of economic union between the Allies, for conservation of the national resources of Allied countries, and for economic protection against enemy trade “penetration” and “dumping” after the war. His special attention was claimed at the end of April by rebellion in Ireland, the most serious incident of which was the capture of a great part of Dublin for a week by rebels (see ). After the suppression of the rising by the troops and the prompt execution of the leaders, he appointed a commission of inquiry, and he himself visited Ireland and returned with a conviction that a united effort must be made to reconstitute Irish government. He appointed Mr. Lloyd George to negotiate and formulate suggestions. In the result he proposed a provisional settlement, for the war and 12 months after, on the basis of bringing the Home Rule Act with certain amendments into immediate operation, with the exclusion of six Ulster counties. To this Sir Edward Carson agreed, but Mr. Redmond objected to the amendments, and nothing was done. The negotiations lost Mr. Asquith the services of Lord Selborne as the rebellion had deprived him of those of Mr. Birrell, the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

The basis of his ministry was rudely shaken in the summer of 1916 by the loss of Lord Kitchener at sea. Lord Kitchener's place at the War Office was taken by Mr. Lloyd George, whose reputation for “getting things done” had been enormously enhanced by the energy with which he had organized the Ministry of Munitions. The attack on the Somme seemed to promise an end to the trench war, but after many weeks of most determined fighting the German line was not broken through; and in the latter part of the year Rumania was crushed. These events in- creased public dissatisfaction, which had been stimulated by half-hearted dealings with the blockade of Germany, with the food problem, and with the creation of an adequate aerial force; and public criticism was focused on Mr. Asquith, whose incautious phrase of six years before — “wait and see” — was frequently flung in his face. In the House of Commons two strong committees, one of Liberals and one of Conservatives, had been formed for the purpose of the resolute prosecution of the war and the keeping of ministers up to the mark. Mr. Asquith's speeches were always resolute enough; he promptly denounced any overtures of pacifists for a premature peace; but he was thought to be lacking in initiative, and to carry into the counsels of war somewhat the attitude of an impartial Cabinet chairman weighing pros and cons and counting heads for a decision.

The War Council initiated under his Liberal Government was continued with very little modification, save in personnel, under the Coalition; and the final authority remained with the Cabinet. It was felt that a small body, sitting daily, with power to act at once without reference, was essential for the proper conduct of the war. Mr. Lloyd George, the most active member of the War Council, by a letter on Dec. 1, demanded the establishment of such a body, with himself as one of its members, but without Mr. Asquith. He subsequently amended his proposal,

giving Mr. Asquith a consultative membership and a power of veto. But it was clear that the effect must be to transfer the main conduct of the war from Mr. Asquith to Mr. Lloyd George. Mr. Asquith, who had consented to reconstruct his Government, refused Mr. Lloyd George's ultimatum; and on Dec. 5 Mr. Lloyd George resigned. Without him Mr. Asquith clearly could not carry on, and he himself resigned the same evening, being succeeded, after some complications, by Mr. Lloyd George. So ended a premiership which had lasted nearly nine years, and left an ineffaceable mark on English history. He carried into retirement his principal Liberal colleagues, including Lord Grey of Fallodon; and many tributes of regard and respect were paid him by the Unionists who had been his colleagues.

After his resignation Mr. Asquith took his seat on the front Opposition bench; but he disclaimed being in any sense a leader of Opposition, and affirmed that his one desire was to give the Government the benefit of whatever experience he had gained. He maintained this attitude throughout 1917, making resolute and helpful speeches in different parts of the country on behalf of the national war aims. In Parliament he rendered material assistance to the Ministerial Franchise bill; and he announced that the services of women during the war had converted him to female suffrage. In 1918 he became rather more critical, and in particular called parliamentary attention to a letter in which Gen. Sir Frederick Maurice, formerly Director of Military Operations, challenged the veracity of ministerial statements. He moved to refer the general's charges to a select committee of the House, but was beaten on a division by 293 votes to 106. This action, taken during the period of the alarming German advance, marked a definite cleavage with the Government, which was widened after the Armistice by the conditions under which the general election was held in December. Mr. Asquith and those of his colleagues who had not joined Mr. Lloyd George, together with a considerable section of Liberal members, declined to pledge their support to the Coalition Government, and desired to be returned as independent Liberals. As the electorate was resolved that those who had won the war should make the peace and begin the reconstruction of the country, he and the whole of his principal colleagues lost their seats, and only 28 of his followers in all were returned. He did not come back to Parliament till Feb. 1920, when he was elected at a by-election for Paisley. This time he appeared as the leader of the independent Liberal Opposition which had been temporarily led in his absence by Sir Donald Maclean; but his followers, though they had gained some seat's since the general election, were still smaller in number in Parliament than the representatives of Labour. Possibly for that reason he was more active in the country than in Parliament, devoting himself to efforts for reviving the Liberal party. He maintained that the time was come to put an end to the Coalition and resume party Government. He attacked ministers for their departures from Free Trade, for their wasteful administration, and for their policy in Ireland. He strongly condemned reprisals in that island, and declared for Dominion Home Rule. For a time he seemed to be recovering his hold on the country; but in the last half of 1920 and in 1921 there was a setback. It was no help to his political position that Mrs. Asquith published in the autumn of 1920 a volume of very frank and indiscreet Reminiscences.

In 1918 Mr. Asquith himself published a volume of Occasional Addresses, delivered between the years 1893-1916, thus remind- ing the world that he was a worthy successor of a long line of scholarly and intellectual Prime Ministers, capable of treating with distinction and acceptance matters of the mind wholly unconnected with politics. The book contained, amongst others, Rectorial Addresses to the universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen, a Presidential Address to the Classical Association, and a dissertation on “biography” read before the Edinburgh Philosophical Institution. The universities of the country duly recognized the claims made upon them by his scholarship. Besides being elected to the rectorships, first of Glasgow and then of Aberdeen, he received honorary degrees from Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrews, Durham, Bristol and Leeds.

(G. E. B.)


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Astor, William Waldorf Astor, 1st Viscount

WILLIAM WALDORF ASTOR, (1848-1919) [see ], died at Brighton Oct. 18 1919. He was in 1916 raised to the peerage, and in 1917 was created a viscount.

His eldest son, , born in New York May 19 1879, was educated at Eton and New College, Oxford. In 1911 he successfully contested the Sutton division of Plymouth as a Unionist, but vacated his seat in 1919 on succeeding to his father's peerage. He was chairman of the Government Committee on tuberculosis and of the State Medical Research Committee. During the World War he was inspector of quartermaster-general services, and in 1918 became parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. In Jan. 1919 he was appointed parliamentary secretary to the Local Government Board, and retained the same position on the formation of the Ministry of Health in Aug. 1919. His wife,, born in Virginia May 19 1879, was the daughter of Chiswell Dabney Langhorne, of an old Virginian family. She married in 1897 Robert Gould Shaw, of Boston, from whom she obtained a divorce in 1903, and in 1906 married Waldorf Astor. When her husband succeeded to the viscountcy, Lady Astor, who had taken much interest in the local affairs of her husband's former constituency in Plymouth, was adopted there as Coalition Unionist candidate for the vacant seat in Parliament. She was elected by a substantial majority Nov. 28 1919, thus becoming the first woman to sit in the House of Commons.


text:
Page:The Necessity of Atheism (Brooks).djvu/159

 The human race has suffered three grave humiliations: when Copernicus showed that the earth was not the center of the universe; when Darwin proved that man's origin was not the result of direct creation; when Freud explained that man was not the master of his own thoughts or actions. Author:Llewelyn Powys

the writings of the Greek and Roman philosophers are found the germinal concepts of geological truths. But as Christianity took control of the world instead of a steady progression of knowledge in this field there was a distinct retrogression. According to the prevailing belief the earth was soon to be destroyed and the collecting of knowledge was futile and any study of its nature was vain.

St. Jerome stated that the broken and twisted crust of the earth exhibited the wrath of God against sin. Tertullian asserted that fossils resulted from the flood of Noah. A scientific explanation of fossil remains was attempted by De Clave, Bitaud, and De Villon in the seventeenth century. The theological faculty of Paris protested against the scientific doctrine as unscriptural, destroyed their treatises, and banished their authors-from Paris.

In the middle pf the eighteenth century Buffon, in France, produced a thesis attempting to state simple geological truths. The theological faculty of the Sorbonne i57


text:
Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/74

 Declaration

Please complete the declaration form.

Click here to begin ...

1

(one) Please confirm that you have completed the Feedback Questionnaire for each article.

 * [[File:Radio button off.png]] Yes

2

(two) Please confirm that all reviews were conducted by you.

 * [[File:Radio button off.png]] Yes

3

(three) Please confirm that you did NOT make any attempts to identify the sources of the articles.

74
 * [[File:Radio button off.png]] No, I did not.

title: Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/74


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Massachusetts

MASSACHUSETTS (see ). — The pop. in 1920 was 3,852,356, an increase of 485,940 or 14.4% since 1910, as against 20% in the preceding decade. Nearly one-third of the state's inhabitants lived in metropolitan Boston. Less than 1.3% were negroes; 27.9% were foreign born, of whom 24.4% came from Canada. The average density of pop. was 479.2 per sq.m., as against 418.8 in 1910. The urban pop. (in 169 places of more than 2,500) was 94.8% of the whole as against 92.8% in 1910. The pop. of the 13 chief cities was: —

History. — During the decade 1910-20 the most important laws enacted by the Legislature were the following: In 1912 a minimum-wage board was established with the right to determine wages of women and children. The inheritance law was amended so that only the real estate of a deceased non-resident is taxed, personal property taxes going to the state of residence. A 1913 law provided for the establishment and maintenance of continuation schools and instruction for working-children. A number of pure-food laws were enacted; also, a law providing for mothers' pensions. Laws relating to elections were so amended that on application signed by 1,200 voters in any senatorial district, or by 200 voters in any representative district, asking for the submission to the voters of any question of instruction to senators or representatives, the Secretary of the Commonwealth shall determine if such a question is one of public policy, and, if so determined, he shall place such question on the official ballot

to be used at the next state election. Women voters were given the right of voting for candidates for school committees in 1881. In 1914 a measure was passed submitting to the people a constitutional amendment giving suffrage to women, suffrage being finally granted June 25 1919. In 1916 the civil and criminal jurisdiction of district or municipal courts was extended so that their process runs throughout the state and makes them courts of superior and general jurisdiction. An income tax was enacted. A new law to prevent misstatements in advertising went into effect May 25. An Act forbidding the sale of narcotic drugs, except by prescriptions carefully regulated, was passed in 1917. Massachusetts in 1918 ratified the Federal Prohibition amendment, being the 11th state to do this. That same year a budget system was adopted, also commissions were created to investigate the educational system of the state. The Legislature in 1919 made absentee-voting possible for those in military or naval service and others who make proper arrangements. It also passed a law making all Acts approved by the executive, unless subject to referendum, take effect 30 days after formal enactment. Emergency laws take effect upon passage. The maximum amount of deposit in savings banks was raised to $4,000. Manufacturing corporations can provide for representation of their employees upon the board of directors if more than half the employees so decide by secret ballot. Industrial accident compensation was increased. The income tax was revised. An Act reorganizing the executive and administrative functions of the state Government, approved July 23 1919, established many new departments, and a metropolitan district commission was authorized, with general supervision over the metropolitan area. The Legislature of 1920 passed a law providing for a state constabulary. Motion-pictures within the state were censored. Women were allowed to hold office. Suits were permitted by and against voluntary associations. Important “blue sky” legislation was enacted.

During the World War many emergency measures were passed by the Legislature. The subscriptions to the Liberty Loans were as follows: first, $177,236,400; second, $317,799,250; third, $228,329,750; fourth, $405,257,500; and to the Victory Loan, $252,767,450. Approximately 200,000 men were enlisted in the service of the Federal Government.

The governors for the decade were: Eugene M. Foss (Dem.), 1911-4; David I. Walsh (Dem.), 1914-6; Samuel W. McCall (Rep.), 1916-9; Calvin D.Coolidge (Rep.), 1910-20; and Channing H. Cox (Rep.), 1920-. The opening on July 29 1914 of a canal across Cape Cod shortened by 70 m. the distance by water from New York to Boston. (Author:Frederick Albert Cleveland)


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/64

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011 TOP SECRET – Sensitive held that vital U.S. interests were at stake in Indochina, and those who were unwilling to make a firm decision to intervene with U.S. ground forces to assure those interests. Consequently, when the French began pressing for U.S. intervention at Dien Bien Phu, the Eisenhower Administration took the position that the U.S. would not intervene unilaterally, but only in concert with a number of European and Far Eastern allies as part of a combined force. (Tab 1)

This "united action" proposal, announced publicly by Secretary Dulles on March 29, 1954; was also designed to offer the French an alternative to surrender at the negotiating table. Negotiations for a political settlement of the Franco–Viet Minh war, however, were assured when the Big Four Foreign Ministers meeting in February at Berlin placed Indochina on the agenda of the impending Geneva Conference. Foreign Minister Bidault insisted upon this, over U.S. objections, because of the mounting pressure in France for an end to the seemingly interminable and costly war. The "peace faction" in Paris became stronger in proportion to the "peace feelers" let out by Ho Chi Minh, and the lack of French success on the battlefield. U.S. policy was to steer the French away from negotiations because of the fear that Indochina would thereby be handed over to the communist "empire."

Secretary Dulles envisaged a ten-nation collective defense force to take "united action" to prevent a French defeat — if necessary before the Geneva Conference. Dulles and Admiral Radford were, at first, inclined towards an early unilateral intervention at Dien Bien Phu, as requested by the French (the so-called "Operation Vulture"). But Congressional leaders indicated they would not support U.S. military action without active allied participation, and President Eisenhower decided that he would not intervene without Congressional approval. In addition to allied participation, Congressional approval was deemed dependent upon a public declaration by France that it was speeding up the timetable for independence for the Associated States.

The U.S. was unable to gather much support for "united action" except in Thailand and the Philippines. The British response was one of hesitation in general, and flat opposition to undertaking military action before the Geneva Conference. Eden feared that it would lead to an expansion of the war with a high risk of Chinese intervention. Moreover, the British questioned both the U.S. domino principle, and the belief that Indochina would be totally lost at Dien Bien Phu and through negotiations at Geneva. As for the French, they were less interested in "united action" than in immediate U.S. military assistance at Dien Bien Phu. Paris feared that united action would lead to the internationalization of the war, and take control out of its hands. In addition, it would impede or delay the very negotiations leading towards a settlement which the French increasingly desired. But repeated French requests for direct U.S. intervention during the final agony of Dien Bien phu failed to alter president Eisenhower's conviction that it would be an error for the U.S. to act alone. Rh

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/64


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/65

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011 TOP SECRET – Sensitive Following the fall of Dien Bien Phu during the Geneva Conference, the "domino theory" underwent a reappraisal. On a May 11 press conference, Secretary Dulles observed that "Southeast Asia could be secured even without, perhaps, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia." In a further remark that was deleted from the official transcript; Dulles said that Laos and Cambodia were "important but by no means essential" because they were poor countries with meager populations. (Tab 2)

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/65


text:
Author:Georges-Louis Leclerc

Works

 * Natural History, General and Particular (1785) vol 2, vol 3,  vol 6,   vol 8 Also in Google books

 * The Natural History of Birds (1793), in 9 volumes
 * Buffon's Natural History (Barr's Buffon) (1797), in 10 volumes vol 1, vol 2, vol 3, vol 4, vol 5, vol 6, vol 7, vol 8, vol 9, vol 10

 * The Natural History of Oviparous Quadrupeds, and Serpents (1802), in 4 volumes vol 1, vol 2, vol 3, vol 4
 * Natural History of Birds, Fish, Insects, and Reptiles (1808), in 6 volumes vol 1, vol 2, vol 3, vol 4, vol 5, vol 6

Works about Leclerc

 * Buffon, in Biographies of Scientific Men (1912)
 * Buffon, in Biographies of Scientific Men (1912)

title: Author:Georges-Louis Leclerc


text:
Page:The Necessity of Atheism (Brooks).djvu/160

158 dismissed him from his high position and forced him to print a recantation stating, "I declare that I had no intention to contradict the text of the Scripture; that I believe most firmly all therein related about the creation, both as to order of time and matter of fact. I abandon everything in my book respecting the formation of the earth and generally all which may be contrary to the narrative of Moses!"

The doctrine which Buffon abandoned is now as firmly established as that of the earth's rotation upon its axis. Yet, in his day, it was heatedly asserted by ecclesiastics that the scientific doctrine that fossils represent animals which died before Adam contradicts the theological doctrine of Adam's fall, and the statement that death entered the world by sin and this objection was further strengthened when the ecclesiastics became cognizant that geology had proved that the earth was vastly older than the 6000 years determined by Archbishop Ussher's interpretation of the Old Testament.

About 1580, there was published by authority of Pope Gregory XIII, the Roman Martyrology, revised in 1640 under Pope Urban VIII, which declared that the creation of man took place 5199 years before Christ. In 1650, Archbishop Ussher announced after careful study that man was created 4004 years before the Christian era. But, this proving too vague, Dr. John Lightfoot, vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, assured the world that, "Heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water ... and this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on the 23d of October, 4004 B.C. at nine o'clock in the morning"

When the Egyptologists, Assyriologists, archeologists, and anthropologists showed that man had reached a far advanced stage of civilization long before the 6000 years


text:
Page:The Necessity of Atheism (Brooks).djvu/161

Rh given as the age of the earth, their efforts were ridiculed by the clergy, and these scientists were forced to bring their findings before the world in the face of the well known methods of ecclesiastical opposition.

At a very early period in the evolution of civilization men began to ask questions regarding language, and the answers to these questions were naturally embodied in the myths, legends, and chronicles of their sacred books. Language was considered God-given and complete. The diversity of language was firmly held to be explained by the story of the Tower of Babel; and since the writers of the Bible were merely pens in the hand of God the conclusion was reached that not only the sense, but the words, letters, and even the punctuation proceeded from the Holy Spirit.

At the end of the seventeenth century, the ecclesiastical contention that the Hebrew punctuation was divinely inspired seemed to be generally disproven. The great orthodox body of "religiosa dementia" fell back upon the remainder of the theory that the Hebrew language was the first of all languages which was spoken by the Almighty, given by Him to Adam, transmitted through Noah to the world after the deluge, and that the confusion of tongues was the origin of all other tongues.

It has only been in comparatively recent time, and in spite of the opposition of the clergy, that language has been accepted as the result of evolutionary processes in obedience to laws more or less clearly ascertained. Babel thus takes its place quietly among the other myths of the Bible.

In a purely civil matter, the infallible Church from its inception had displayed a marked hostility to loans at interest. From the earliest period the whole weight of the Church was brought to bear against the taking of


text:
Page:The Necessity of Atheism (Brooks).djvu/162

l60 interest for money. Pope Leo the Great solemnly adjudged it a sin worthy of severe punishment. In the thirteenth century, Pope Gregory IX dealt an especially severe blow at commerce by his declaration that even to advance on interest the money necessary in maritime trade was damnable usury. The whole evolution of European civilization was greatly hindered by this policy.

Darwinism, which at first was declared by the clergy to be brutal, degrading, atheistic, and anti-Christian, is now included as part of the Bible teaching.

In a similar manner, the Copernican theory, the theory of gravitation, the nebular hypothesis, the theory of uniformity in geology, and every scientific advance has been opposed on the same grounds; that is, that these are against the teachings of the Christian Church. And how many Galileos, Brunos, and Darwins, and other would-be benefactors to the human race have died mute because of this opposition and fear of persecution by the Church?

In 1877, an eminent French Catholic physician, Dr. Constantin James, published an elaborate answer to Darwin's book. He called it, "On Darwinism, or the Ape Man." A copy was sent to Pope Pius IX, who was so pleased with it that he sent the author a reply in which he stated that it "refutes so well the aberrations of Darwinism, a system which is repugnant at once to history, to the traditions of all peoples, to exact science, to observed facts, and even to reason itself, would seem to need no refutation did not alienation from God and the leaning toward materialism, due to depravity, eagerly seek support in all this tissue of fables."

The Protestant clergy were no less vigorous in their opposition. In our own country it was opposed by Dr.


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antipodes

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antipodes


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antipyrine

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antipyrine


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antiquary

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Antiquary


text:
Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/32

 {| border=1 cellpadding=5
 * Test Statistic
 * P value
 * Accuracy
 * U = 2645.00**
 * 0.004
 * References
 * U = 3285.00**
 * <0.001
 * Style/ Readability
 * U = 1533.00**
 * 0.01
 * Overall Judgment
 * U = 2638.50**
 * 0.001
 * Overall Quality Score
 * U = 2148.50
 * 0.38
 * }
 * U = 2638.50**
 * 0.001
 * Overall Quality Score
 * U = 2148.50
 * 0.38
 * }
 * }

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

5.1.2 Comparison within each Language Group between Wikipedia Entries and Articles from the Alternative Encyclopaedias

The findings of the comparisons of reviewers' ratings of articles from Wikipedia and from the alternative encyclopaedias for English are presented in Table 5.7. Similar comparisons for Spanish and Arabic are presented in Tables 5.8 and 5.9 respectively.

In English, Wikipedia scored significantly higher on accuracy, references and overall judgment, as compared to the alternative encyclopaedia (Encyclopaedia Britannica) (see Tables 5.3 and 5.7). There were no differences between Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on style and overall quality score.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

In Spanish, Wikipedia scored significantly higher on accuracy, references and overall judgment as compared to the alternative encyclopaedia (Enciclonet) (see Tables 5.3 and 5.8). There were no differences between Wikipedia and Enciclonet on style and overall quality score.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

32

title: Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/32


text:
Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/33

 In Arabic, the alternative encyclopaedias (Mawsoah and ArabEncy) scored significantly higher than on style than Wikipedia (see Tables 5.3 and 5.9). There were no differences between Wikipedia and either Mawsoah or ArabEncy on accuracy, references, overall judgment and overall quality score.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

5.1.3 Comparison within each Academic Discipline between Wikipedia Entries and Articles from the Alternative Encyclopaedias

The findings of the comparisons of reviewers' ratings of articles from Wikipedia and from the alternative encyclopaedias for the Humanities are presented in Table 5.13. Similar comparisons for the Social Sciences, Mathematics, Physics and Life Sciences, and the Medical Sciences are presented in Tables 5.11, 5.12 and 5.13 respectively.

In the Humanities, Wikipedia scored significantly higher on references as compared to the alternative encyclopaedias (see Tables 5.4 and 5.10). There were no differences between Wikipedia and the alternative encyclopaedias on accuracy, style/ readability, overall judgment and overall quality score.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

In the Social Sciences, Wikipedia scored significantly higher on references as compared to the alternative encyclopaedias, but the alternative encyclopaedias scored significantly higher on style/ readability as compared to Wikipedia (see Tables 5.4 and 5.11). There were no differences between Wikipedia and the alternative encyclopaedias on accuracy, overall judgment and overall quality score. 33

title: Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/33


text:
Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/34

 {| border=1 cellpadding=5
 * Dimensions
 * Test Statistic
 * P value
 * Accuracy
 * U = 238.00
 * 0.30
 * References
 * U = 341.00**
 * <0.001
 * Style/ Readability
 * U = 95.00**
 * <0.004
 * Overall Judgment
 * U = 218.00
 * 0.28
 * Overall Quality Score
 * U = 153.00
 * 0.44
 * }
 * 0.28
 * Overall Quality Score
 * U = 153.00
 * 0.44
 * }
 * }

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

In Mathematics, Physics and Life Sciences, Wikipedia scored significantly higher on references as compared to the alternative encyclopaedias (see Tables 5.4 and 5.12). There were no differences between Wikipedia and the alternative encyclopaedias on accuracy, style/ readability, overall judgment and overall quality score.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

In the Medical Sciences, Wikipedia scored significantly higher on accuracy, references and overall judgment as compared to the alternative encyclopaedias (see Tables 5.4 and 5.13). There were no differences between Wikipedia and the alternative encyclopaedias on style/ readability and overall quality score.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

34

title: Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/34


text:
Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/35

 5.1.4 Comparison between Wikipedia Entries and Articles from the Alternative Encyclopaedias per Cell i.e. per Language and Academic Discipline

The results of the intra-cell comparisons are presented in Table 5.14. It is difficult to interpret these findings without the raw data – a reporting of which is beyond the scope of this document. However, to summarise the findings, the far right column of the table contains the interpretation of the findings with reference to the database.

To summarise, in nine out of the ten cells, Wikipedia scored significantly higher than the alternative encyclopaedias on references. In one cell (English and Medical Sciences) Wikipedia scored significantly higher than the alternative (Encyclopaedia Britannica) on all dimensions. In another cell (Arabic and Mathematics, Physics and Life Sciences) the alternative scored significantly higher than Wikipedia on references, style and overall judgment.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic. MPLS = Mathematics, Physics and Life Sciences.

35

title: Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/35


text:
Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/36

 5.1.5 Inter-Reviewer Comparisons

There were no differences in the scoring of articles for both Wikipedia articles and in articles from the alternative encyclopaedias, based on whether the articles were reviewed by students or academic experts. These results are presented in Table 5.15.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

The results of the inter-reviewer comparisons categorised according to language are presented in table 5.16 below. Spanish academics scored articles significantly higher for style/ readability and overall judgment as compared to students. Overall quality scores were significantly higher among students native in English, compared to academics native in English, although no significant differences were detected on any of the other four dimensions. A similar finding was found for overall quality scores among Arabic reviewers.

The results of the inter-reviewer comparisons categorised according to academic disciplines are presented in table 5.17 below. There were no significant differences between the ratings of articles by students and academic experts in the Humanities, Social Sciences, Mathematics, Physics and Life Sciences, and the Medical Sciences. 36

title: Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/36


text:
Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/37

 {| border=1 cellpadding=5
 * Student Mean (SD)
 * Academic Mean (SD)
 * Statistical Test
 * p value
 * colspan="5"| English
 * Accuracy
 * 3.32 (1.07)
 * 3.92 (0.84)
 * U = 363.50
 * p = 0.13
 * References
 * 1.97 (1.22)
 * 2.69 (1.58)
 * U = 350.00
 * p = 0.21
 * Style/ Readability
 * 2.75 (0.97)
 * 3.61 (0.82)
 * U = 408.00*
 * p = 0.02
 * Overall Judgement
 * 1.72 (0.61)
 * 2.22 (0.61)
 * U = 391.00*
 * p = 0.01
 * Overall Quality Score
 * 0.28 (0.31)
 * 0.44 (0.34)
 * U = 340.00
 * p = 0.12
 * colspan="5"| Spanish
 * Accuracy
 * 3.38 (0.36)
 * 3.58 (0.93)
 * U = 117.50
 * p = 0.36
 * References
 * 1.63 (0.92)
 * 1.81 (1.21)
 * U = 102.00
 * p = 0.82
 * Style/ Readability
 * 3.24 (1.08)
 * 3.17 (0.99)
 * U = 91.00
 * p = 0.85
 * Overall Judgement
 * 1.77 (0.39)
 * 1.86 (0.60)
 * U = 104.00
 * p = 0.75
 * Overall Quality Score
 * 0.31 (0.26)
 * 0.38 (0.34)
 * U = 103.50
 * p = 0.75
 * colspan="5"| Arabic
 * Accuracy
 * 4.10 (0.85)
 * 3.66 (1.05)
 * U = 165.50
 * p = 0.15
 * References
 * 2.63 (1.61)
 * 2.52 (1.62)
 * U = 214.50
 * p = 0.81
 * Style/ Readability
 * 3.50 (0.90)
 * 3.28 (0.71)
 * U = 182.50
 * p = 0.31
 * Overall Judgement
 * 2.28 (0.63)
 * 1.95 (0.64)
 * U = 155.50*
 * p = 0.10
 * Overall Quality Score
 * 0.59 (0.37)
 * 0.14 (0.27)
 * U = 83.50*
 * p <0.001
 * }
 * p = 0.81
 * Style/ Readability
 * 3.50 (0.90)
 * 3.28 (0.71)
 * U = 182.50
 * p = 0.31
 * Overall Judgement
 * 2.28 (0.63)
 * 1.95 (0.64)
 * U = 155.50*
 * p = 0.10
 * Overall Quality Score
 * 0.59 (0.37)
 * 0.14 (0.27)
 * U = 83.50*
 * p <0.001
 * }
 * U = 83.50*
 * p <0.001
 * }

* p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

Table 5.16 Comparisons in ratings of articles (Wikipedia and alternative encyclopaedias) by student or academic experts, categorised according to language. 37

title: Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/37


text:
Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/38

 {| border=1 cellpadding=5
 * Student Mean (SD)
 * Academic Mean (SD)
 * Statistical Test
 * p value
 * colspan="5"| Humanities
 * Accuracy
 * 3.85 (0.57)
 * 4.30 (0.66)
 * U = 7.00
 * p = 0.89
 * References
 * 1.38 (0.75)
 * 4.13 (0.75)
 * U = 8.00
 * p = 1.00
 * Style/ Readability
 * 3.96 (0.63)
 * 3.43 (0.35)
 * U = 7.00
 * p = 0.89
 * Overall Judgement
 * 2.09 (0.50)
 * 2.57 (0.34)
 * U = 6.50
 * p = 0.69
 * Overall Quality Score
 * 0.63 (0.48)
 * 0.50 (0.19)
 * U = 6.50
 * p = 0.69
 * colspan="5"| Social Sciences
 * Accuracy
 * 3.42 (0.86)
 * 3.82 (0.72)
 * U = 230.00
 * p = 0.29
 * References
 * 1.86 (1.02)
 * 2.77 (1.61)
 * U = 232.00
 * p = 0.26
 * Style/ Readability
 * 3.29 (1.08)
 * 3.45 (0.85)
 * U = 188.50
 * p = 0.92
 * Overall Judgement
 * 1.92 （0.47)
 * 2.23 (0.63)
 * U = 226.50
 * p = 0.14
 * Overall Quality Score
 * 0.50 (0.32)
 * 0.54 (0.41)
 * U = 189.00
 * p = 0.72
 * colspan="5"| Mathematics, Physics & Life Sciences
 * Accuracy
 * 4.40 (0.45)
 * 4.22 (0.84)
 * U = 106.00
 * p = 0.84
 * References
 * 2.94 (1.47)
 * 2.48 (1.66)
 * U = 94.50
 * p = 0.51
 * Style/ Readability
 * 3.27 (1.09)
 * 3.51 (0.76)
 * U = 125.00
 * p = 0.64
 * Overall Judgement
 * 2.35 (0.69)
 * 2.15 (0.58)
 * U = 92.00
 * p = 0.47
 * Overall Quality Score
 * 0.56 (0.42)
 * 0.27 (0.25)
 * U = 65.50
 * p = 0.08
 * colspan="5"| Medical Sciences
 * Accuracy
 * 3.30 (1.07)
 * 3.22 (0.96)
 * U = 173.50
 * p = 0.62
 * References
 * 1.83 (1.39)
 * 2.00 (1.33)
 * U = 218.00
 * p = 0.62
 * Style/ Readability
 * 2.70 (0.89)
 * 3.17 (0.92)
 * U = 248.50
 * p = 0.14
 * Overall Judgement
 * 1.62 (0.66)
 * 1.76 (0.61)
 * U = 220.00
 * p = 0.46
 * Overall Quality Score
 * 0.13 (0.23)
 * 0.20 (0.28)
 * U = 217.50
 * p = 0.42
 * }
 * p = 0.62
 * References
 * 1.83 (1.39)
 * 2.00 (1.33)
 * U = 218.00
 * p = 0.62
 * Style/ Readability
 * 2.70 (0.89)
 * 3.17 (0.92)
 * U = 248.50
 * p = 0.14
 * Overall Judgement
 * 1.62 (0.66)
 * 1.76 (0.61)
 * U = 220.00
 * p = 0.46
 * Overall Quality Score
 * 0.13 (0.23)
 * 0.20 (0.28)
 * U = 217.50
 * p = 0.42
 * }
 * 0.20 (0.28)
 * U = 217.50
 * p = 0.42
 * }

* p<0.05, **p<0.01. U = Mann Whitney U test statistic.

5.2 Qualitative Findings

This section of the report summarises and discusses findings from the qualitative element of the research, in terms of the perceptions, opinions and judgments of the expert reviewers regarding the articles from Wikipedia, and other online encyclopaedias. In Section 3, we explained how reviewers – both professional academics, and graduate students – were asked to comment on the quality, accuracy, citability and style of a few articles each, in their own fields of expertise. As was shown in that section, we paired Wikipedia articles with similar ones from the following sources: online Encyclopaedia Britannica (English articles), Enciclonet (Spanish), Mawsoah and Arab Encyclopaedia (Arabic), removing all evidence of the source of each article. We asked reviewers to comment on a range of quality criteria, summarised as accuracy, incorporating validity, completeness, relevance, neutrality/ bias, currency; use of references; style/ readability incorporating conciseness, language, spelling and grammar, coherence, use of illustrative material, and enjoyment. Having commented on each of these aspects for each paper separately, reviewers were asked to compare the two ('Please use the space below to make any additional comments about the two articles in comparison with each other'). 38

title: Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/38


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hemans, Felicia Dorothea


text:
Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/39

 5.2.1 Academics' Qualitative Judgments

In this section we shall look first of all, in section 5.2.1.1, at how the academics in this study tended to make judgments, both positive and negative, about the full range of online encyclopaedia articles in the sample. Then we shall look specifically in 5.2.1.2 at the question of whether it is possible to identify strengths and weaknesses that are characteristic of Wikipedia articles in particular. Academics were simply told that the articles given to them for review 'have been carefully chosen from popular online encyclopaedias to overlap with your area of academic expertise', and were urged not to attempt to identify the origins of articles. Therefore we aim to detect whether judgments, made blind as to the identity of different articles, revealed characteristic patterns regarding Wikipedia articles.

Whilst different reviewers sometimes expressed contradictory opinions regarding the same article (which will be discussed further in Section 6), initial analysis has indicated that there was no marked pattern of differences of opinion between student reviewers and more established academic reviewers. For that reason, we include responses from both in the following sections of this report. We do, though, in the interests of transparency, indicate throughout the qualitative data whether a comment came from a student, an established academic or a professor. It should be noted that the term 'student' covered masters students, research students reading for a variety of research degrees including doctorates, and postdoctoral students. And again, we specify these distinctions when quoting comments from reviewers.

5.2.1.1 Academics' Judgments about Online Encyclopaedia Articles in General

In this sub-section, we try to capture the aspects of articles that earned either the approval or disapproval of the academic reviewers across the full sample of articles selected. The aspects praised and criticised below are fairly evenly distributed across all sources, and are intended to illustrate the kinds of judgments about online encyclopaedia articles across the sample that were generated by the experience of comparing and reviewing one or more pairs of articles on specific topics. So although we identify the sources of the articles in the following examples, again in the interest of transparency, we are not suggesting that the characteristics discussed in this sub-section are uniquely typical of that source.

It was evident on a number of occasions that academics, having considered the criteria put before them to help them with their quality judgments, and scored each of these criteria individually, very often went on to consider the combined characteristics of an article, balancing and synthesising the individual elements to arrive at an overall judgment. This is evident for example in the responses of two different reviewers for the pair of articles on Evo Morales, in which it appears that the overall feel and coherence of the article were valued more highly than quantity or currency of information:

 "The second one [Enciclonet] is much better than the first one [Wikipedia]. It is shorter but contains all the important information up to 2006. It also has a better and more professional style." (Reviewer 3 – academic)

Speaking as an academic, I much preferred the second piece [Enciclonet] in this case. However, this was on principally intellectual and aesthetic grounds. For the most up to date information, and for more information about the various critics of  39

title: Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/39


text:
Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/40

 Morales' governance, I would have to consult the first piece [Wikipedia] since this is absent in the second." (Reviewer 2 – academic)

For a number of academics, the impression of the article as a cohesive piece of writing appeared to be valued at least as much as the extent of subject matter, as can be seen in this comment on the pair of articles on Energia Renovable:

 * "The first artcilearticle [sic] [Wikipedia] is more suitable and better descriptive of the subject matter. However, article 2 (Enciclonet) is half its size and can be read more quickly, which poses distinct advantages. Both are well written and accurate." (Reviewer 1 – Professor)

Even when lack of comprehensiveness (specifically here, lack of currency) is acknowledged as undermining its usefulness, the overall feel of an article still earns it some degree of approval, even if not actually rendering it preferable to the article that is more up to date:

 * "The first article [Wikipedia] had more information, but the second [Mawsoah] was much more eloquent." (Reviewer 1 – research student – on articles on Egypt)

By the same measure, when one article abandoned any attempt at providing an engaging narrative, it was viewed quite negatively:

 * "There is not a lot of writing in this article [Wikipedia]; mostly there are series of factual information in bullet point format." (Reviewer 2 – academic – Primary Education)

Criticisms of this kind were made about both Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia articles, and are quoted here in order to capture the impression emerging from the data that academics – while of course strongly concerned with accuracy, currency and comprehensiveness (also demonstrated in the quantitative results) – also judge articles of this kind for their capacity to bring a topic alive to the non-expert or casual reader. This theme runs through the comments from all three reviewers on the pair of articles about Polonomia:

 * "The second article [Wikipedia] is much clearer and concise, though it could need some additional information. The first article [Enciclonet], on the other hand, lacks focus and is rather inconsistent." (Reviewer 3 – academic)
 * "The first article is too confusing, poorly written and makes emphasis on one aspect of the theory. The second one is better written, gives a good overview, but does not cover in depth any topic. The scope of the first is larger but the execution is very poor. The quality of the second is higher, but it is too short." (Reviewer 2 – postdoc)

Certain tendencies, which to some extent crossed both language and disciplinary boundaries, are apparent here. Concision (which above all seems to have been taken to mean something along the lines of getting straight to the point) is valued a great deal by many reviewers (especially with respect to scientific articles) as is good writing – in terms of having a clear and informative tone of voice throughout:

 "Article 1 [Enciclonet] goes deeper than the article 2 [Wikipedia]. In particular, notions of polynomial in higher algebraic settings are discussed and more theoretical  40

title: Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/40


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Davies, Rowland Lyttleton Archer


text:
Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/46

 While being a bit repetitive does not necessarily constitute a serious problem, simply repeating the same information at some length is clearly seen as a potential source of distraction or potential irritation to the reader:

 * "Within different sections, the article is [...] generally well structured, although there are some cases where information is repeated in multiple sections. For example, information on the applications of antibiotics in genetic engineering is given at the end of the article and in the section on mechanisms of antibiotic resistance; within the section on mechanisms of antibiotic resistance, general information is provided on mechanisms of antibiotic resistance followed by very specific information on mechanisms of resistance to one class of antibiotics (fluoroquinolones)." (Reviewer 1 – academic – Antibiotic resistance)

The point made by this reviewer of the Wikipedia article on Evo Morales makes an important general point which does appear to have been made considerably more often with respect to Wikipedia:

 * "It feels a little disaggregated at times [...] The piece is fine but not exceptional in terms over overall coherence. It doesn't read as if someone has thought about the whole text as a reading experience, whether the author or editor. So it's fine if you're delving in to get a particular fact, but it doesn't work amazingly well as a singular read." Reviewer 2 – academic – Evo Morales)

The notion of the 'singular read' frequently surfaces in one way or another in article reviews, as indicated in the previous sub-section of this report, and is one that should clearly be considered seriously, in terms of its impact upon reading experience. More serious still, perhaps, is the suggestion from both the other reviewers for the same article that internal inconsistencies had resulted in actual contradictions in the content:

 * "I think that there is a very marked shift between the first 'biographical' part of the article, and the part that begins with the 2005 election victory of Evo. The first part is rather 'Evo-friendly' and relies almost exclusively on direct quotes from Evo. The second part of the article is rather more 'anti-Evo' and relies on newspaper references. It almost seems at times that it was written by two different people." (Reviewer 1 – research student – Evo Morales)
 * "Moves from statements that are too favourable to Morales to some statements that are too critical without enough support. Weak sourcing and bibliography. Would not cite in non-academic piece as not rigorous or well-organised enough." (Reviewer 3 – academic – Evo Morales)

However, there were in fact very few indications of any significant degree of internal contradiction identified in the broad sample of Wikipedia articles. The problem identified here concerns a lower level, but nonetheless important, issue of a lack of consistency and cohesion arising from the multi-authorship of articles.

Neutrality/ Bias

The issue of bias did not often appear to arise from this sample as a major threat to the quality of articles from Wikipedia, or indeed any other sources. It was generally referred to 46

title: Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/46


text:
Page:Popular Astronomy - Airy - 1881.djvu/24

10 appear to turn, and which is not far from the Polar Star. The axis being adjusted with great accuracy in that direction, the instrument turns round that axis, and it carries the telescope CD, which, of course, so long as you give it no other motion, retains the same inclination to that axis; but to which you may give another motion, so as to place it in different positions, as C'D' or C"D", directed to stars in different parts of the heavens. The instrument, then, is employed for the purpose of giving evidence as to the motions of the stars. It is used in this manner. The telescope is directed to any one star, and then by turning the instrument round the axis, it is found, that without any alteration in the position of the telescope in relation to the axis, the telescope will follow the star from its rising to its setting. And it is the same wherever the star may be, whether near the Pole, (in which case the telescope is in such a position as C'D', very little inclined to the axis,) or far from the Pole, (in which case the telescope would be much inclined to the axis, as in the position of C"D",) upon turning the instrument round its axis, the telescope still follows the star. This is a fact of accurate observation, for the confirmation of which this kind of astronomical instrument is peculiarly adapted. In this way it is established as a general fact, that all the stars move accurately in circles round one centre.

But there is another important thing to discover—with what rapidity do the stars turn? Do some travel quicker than others? Do some go quickly in one part, and slowly in another? Now, we have most accurate means of determining whether the speed be irregular or uniform, as regards the speed of any one star in any part of its motion—whether the


text:
Page:The Works of J. W. von Goethe, Volume 6.djvu/186

160 said, "he will not object to-day to these few ornaments being expended on a treble festival."

"Treble?" cried Edward.

"Yes, indeed," she replied. "Our friend's arrival here we are bound to keep as a festival; and have you never thought, either of you, that this is the day on which you were both christened? Are you not both named Otto?"

The two friends shook hands across the little table.

"You bring back to my mind," Edward said, "this little link of our boyish affection. As children we were both called so: but, when we came to be at school together, it was the cause of much confusion; and I readily made over to him all my right to the pretty, laconic name."

"Wherein you were not altogether so very high-minded," said the captain; "for I well remember that the name of Edward had then begun to please you better, from its attractive sound when spoken by certain pretty lips."

They were now all three sitting round the same table where Charlotte had spoken so vehemently against their guest's coming to them. Edward, happy as he was, did not wish to remind his wife of that time; but he could not help saying,—

"There is good room here for one more person."

At this moment the notes of a bugle were heard across from the castle. Full of happy thoughts and feelings as the friends all were together, the sound fell in among them with a strong force of answering harmony. They listened silently; each for the moment withdrawing into himself, and feeling doubly happy in the fair circle of which he formed a part. The pause was first broken by Edward, who started up, and walked out in front of the summer-house.

"Our friend must not think," he said to Charlotte,


text:
Page:The Works of J. W. von Goethe, Volume 6.djvu/187

Rh "that this narrow little valley forms the whole of our domain and possessions. Let us take him up to the top of the hill, where he can see farther, and breathe more freely."

"For this once, then," answered Charlotte, "we must climb up the old foot-path, which is not too easy. By the next time, I hope my walks and steps will have been carried right up."

And so, among rocks and shrubs and bushes, they made their way to the summit, where they found themselves, not on a level flat, but on a sloping grassy terrace, running along the ridge of the hill. The village, with the castle behind it, was out of sight. At the bottom of the valley, sheets of water were seen spreading out right and left, with wooded hills rising immediately from their opposite margin, and, at the end of the upper water, a wall of sharp, precipitous rocks directly overhanging it, their huge forms reflected in its level surface. In the hollow of the ravine, where a considerable brook ran into the lake, lay a mill half hidden among the trees, a sweetly retired spot, most beautifully surrounded; and through the entire semicircle, over which the view extended, ran an endless variety of hills and valleys, copse and forest, the early green of which promised the near approach of a luxuriant clothing of foliage. In many places particular groups of trees caught the eye, and especially a cluster of planes and poplars directly at the spectator's feet, close to the edge of the centre lake. They were at their full growth; and they stood there, spreading out their boughs all around them, in fresh and luxuriant strength.

To these Edward called his friend's attention.

"I myself planted them," he cried, "when I was a boy. They were small trees which I rescued when my father was laying out the new part of the great castle garden, and in the middle of one summer had


text:
Page:The Works of J. W. von Goethe, Volume 6.djvu/188

162 rooted them out. This year you will no doubt see them show their gratitude in a fresh set of shoots."

They returned to the castle in high spirits, and mutually pleased with each other. To the guest was allotted an agreeable and roomy set of apartments in the right wing of the castle; and here he rapidly got his books and papers and instruments in order, to go on with his usual occupation. But Edward, for the first few days, gave him no rest. He took him about everywhere, now on foot, now on horseback, making him acquainted with the country and with the estate; and he embraced the opportunity of imparting to him the wishes, which he had been long entertaining, of getting at some better acquaintance with it, and learning to manage it more profitably.

"The first thing we have to do," said the captain, "is to make a magnetic survey of the property. That is a pleasant and easy matter; and, if it does not admit of entire exactness, it will be always useful, and will do, at any rate, for an agreeable beginning. It can be made, too, without any great staff of assistants; and one can be sure of getting it completed. If by and by you come to require anything more exact, it will be easy then to find some plan to have it made."

The captain was exceedingly skilful at work of this kind. He had brought with him whatever instruments he required, and commenced immediately. Edward provided him with a number of foresters and peasants, who, with his instruction, were able to render him all necessary assistance. The weather was favourable. The evenings and the early mornings were devoted to the designing and drawing; and, in a short time, it was all filled in and coloured. Edward saw his possessions grow out, like a new creation, upon the paper; and it seemed as if now, for the first time, he knew what they were, as if they now, first, were properly his own.


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


text: Inquiry into the shipwreck of 'Geffrard'


text: User:Movses

title: User:Movses


text: User:Lord Akryl

title: User:Lord Akryl


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 2.djvu/81

1533.] have mentioned, as from the love which is felt for the two ladies, and especially for the Princess. She is so entirely beloved that, notwithstanding the law made at the last Parliament, and the menace of death contained in it, they persist in regarding her as Princess. No Parliament, they say, can make her anything but the King's daughter, born in marriage; and so the King and every one else regarded her before that Parliament.

'Lately, when she was removed from Greenwich, a vast crowd of women, wives of citizens and others, walked before her at their husbands' desire, weeping and crying that notwithstanding all she was Princess. Some of them were sent to the Tower, but they would not retract.

'Things are now so critical, and the fear of war is so general, that many of the greatest merchants in London have placed themselves in communication with the Emperor's ambassador, telling him, that if the Emperor will declare war, the English nation will join him for the love they bear the Lady Mary.

'You, my Lord, will remember that when you were here, it was said you were come to tell the King that he was excommunicated, and to demand the hand of the Princess for the Dauphin. The people were so delighted that they have never ceased to pray for you. We too, when we arrived in London, were told that the people were praying for us. They thought our embassy was to the Princess. They imagined her marriage with the Dauphin had been determined on by the two kings, and the satisfaction was intense and universal.


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 2.djvu/82

62 'They believe that, except by this marriage, they cannot possibly escape war; whereas, can it be brought about, they will have peace with the Emperor and all other Christian princes. They are now so disturbed and so desperate that, although at one time they would have preferred a husband for her from among themselves, that they might not have a foreign king, there now is nothing which they desire more. Unless the Dauphin will take her, they say she will continue disinherited; or, if she come to her rights, it can only be by battle, to the great incommodity of the country. The Princess herself says publicly that the Dauphin m her husband, and that she has no hope but in him. I have been told this by persons who have heard it from her own lips.

'The Emperor's ambassador inquired, after you came, whether we had seen her. He said he knew she was most anxious to speak with us; she thought we had permission to visit her, and she looked for good news. He told us among other things, that she had been more strictly guarded of late, by the orders of the Queen that now is, who, knowing her feeling for the Dauphin, feared there might be some practice with her, or some attempt to carry her off.

'The Princess's ladies say that she calls herself the Dauphin's wife. A time will come, she says, when God will see that she has suffered pain and tribulation sufficient; the Dauphin will then demand her of the King her father, and the King her father will not be able to refuse.

'The lady who was my informant heard, also, from


text:
Page:Thompson Motif-Index 2nd 1.djvu/133

Rh


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 2.djvu/83

1533.] the Princess, that her governess, and the other attendants whom the Queen had set to watch her, had assured her that the Dauphin was married to the daughter of the Emperor; but she, the Princess, had answered it was not true—the Dauphin could not have two wives, and they well knew that she was his wife; they told her that story, she said, to make her despair, and agree to give up her rights; but she would never part with her hopes.

'You may have heard of the storm that broke out between her and her governess when we went to visit her little sister. She was carried off by force to her room, that she might not speak with us; and they could neither pacify her nor keep her still, till the gentleman who escorted us told her he had the King's commands that she was not to show herself while we were in the house. You remember the message the same gentleman brought to you from her, and the charge which was given by the Queen.

'Could the King be brought to consent to the marriage, it would be a fair union of two realms, and to annex Britain to the Crown of France would be a great honour to our Sovereign; the English party desire nothing better; the Pope will be glad of it; the Pope fears that, if war break out again, France will draw, closer to England on the terms which the King of England desires; and he may thus lose the French tribute as he has lost the English. He therefore will urge the Emperor to agree, and the Emperor will assist gladly for the love which he bears to his cousin.

'If the Emperor be willing, the King of England


text:
Page:Thompson Motif-Index 2nd 1.djvu/134

128