text:
Page:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu/235

Rh as able seamen were not sailormen at all, but blacklegs of the vilest type, who had taken this means of getting to the California gold mines. It also developed that many of the men had contracted a loathsome disease, most difficult to cure at sea, and at one time seventeen of the crew were laid up and off duty. Captain Waterman had the sailroom turned into a sick bay, but although these men received every care, five of them died, and eight were still in their berths when the Challenge arrived at San Francisco.

For some time after sailing from New York, Captain Waterman and his officers were always armed when they came on deck, but after a while the crew appeared to be in such good shape that this precaution gradually became neglected, until, one morning off Rio Janeiro, while Captain Waterman was taking his sights, he heard shouts for help from the main deck. He at once laid down his sextant and hurried forward to find the mate, Mr. Douglas, with his back to the port bulwark just abaft the main rigging, defending himself with bare fists from four of the crew armed with knives, who were attacking him. As Captain Waterman ran along the main deck he pulled a heavy iron belaying pin out of the rail, and using this with both hands as a club, he dealt a terrific blow on the skull of each of the would-be assassins, which laid them out on deck—two of them dead. Mr. Douglas had received no less than twelve wounds, some of them of a serious nature; indeed, he barely escaped with his life. From that time the officers always carried arms, and there was no further trouble with the crew.

title: Page:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu/235


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/295

 1468 he obtained a warrant to pass to France, Brittany, Picardy, &c. (ib. 1382).

Crawford was one of the jury who sat at the trial of the Boyds in 1469, and after their fall he rose rapidly in wealth and influence. He had on 19 Oct. 1466 obtained a charter of the sheriffdom of Forfar, and on 9 March 1472–3 he received a grant of the third of the lordships of Brechin and Novar for life. In July 1473 he was appointed keeper of Berwick for three years. He was frequently employed on important embassies to England, and on 26 Oct. 1474 acted as proxy for James III at his betrothal to the Princess Cecilia of England. On 6 Dec. of this year he made a new entail of the family estates, settling them on his heirs male for ever. On the rebellion of MacDonald of the Isles in 1476 he was appointed lord high admiral, but MacDonald gave in his submission before it was necessary to proceed against him. In 1480 he was appointed master of the household. He took part in the raid of Lauder in 1482, when the king's favourite Cochrane [see ] was hanged over the bridge there. Crawford was not, however, concerned in the further proceedings against the king. In 1483 he was appointed lord chamberlain. To aid in withstanding the designs of Angus and the other malcontent nobles, he was on 11 Jan. 1487–8 appointed joint high justiciary with Huntly of the north of Scotland. After the pacification of Blackness he was, on 18 May 1488, created Duke of Montrose, the first instance of the dignity of duke being conferred on a Scotsman not a member of the royal family. In the battle of Sauchieburn on the 11th of the following June, Montrose was severely wounded and taken prisoner. He received his liberty on a ransom, but was deprived of all his offices. Having obtained the offer of a free pardon from James IV on condition of resigning the hereditary sheriffdom of Angus to Andrew, lord Gray, he finally, while protesting against the transference as illegal, agreed on 6 Nov. 1488 to resign it. He thus escaped the consequences of the act passed on 18 Oct. annulling all grants made by the late king during the eight preceding months. On 19 Sept. 1489 he received a new charter of the dukedom of Montrose for life, and in February 1489–90 was chosen a member of the privy council. He died at Finhaven about Christmas 1495, and was buried in the Greyfriars Church, Dundee. A petition was presented in 1848 to the queen by the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, claiming the dukedom of Montrose on the ground that the first patent still held good, inasmuch as it was not specially mentioned as abolished; but the House of Lords on 5 Aug. 1853 decided against the claim. After Crawford's death the lordship of Crawford was, on 21 Jan. 1495–6, bestowed on the Earl of Angus, it being declared forfeited by the Duke of Montrose, on account of his having sold it or part of it without the king's consent (Reg. Mag. Sig. 1424–1513, entry 2298).

By his wife, eldest daughter of James, first lord Hamilton, he had two sons—Alexander, lord Lindsay, and John, master of Crawford, who became sixth earl. The two brothers in 1489 quarrelled and fought, when the elder was mortally wounded. The Duke of Montrose married as his second wife Margaret Carmichael.

LINDSAY or LYNDSAY, DAVID (1490–1555), Scottish poet and Lyon king of arms, was the son of David Lyndsay of the Mount in the parish of Monimail, Fife, and of Garmylton, two miles north of Haddington. At which of his father's seats he was born is uncertain, and so is the place of his school education, which, if in Fife, was probably Cupar; if in Lothian, Haddington. The tenor of his character in after-life perhaps turns the balance in favour of Haddington, the school of John Major, Gavin Douglas, and John Knox, possibly also of William Dunbar and George Buchanan. In 1508–9 the name ‘Da Lindesay’ occurs next to the name ‘Da Betone,’ the future cardinal, among the students incorporated as graduates of the college of St. Salvator, which, assuming as is almost certain, the entry refers to the poet, would give the period between 1505 and 1508 as that of his university studies. In the ‘Exchequer Rolls’ of 1508, in the list of servants of Queen Margaret, there appears ‘Unus vocatus Lyndesay in averia [the stable] quondam domini principis,’ who received by the king's command 4l. 8s. 4d. for his fee and his horses' keep (xiii. 127). If this refers to David Lyndsay, as is probable, it proves that he entered the royal service as equerry to the elder Prince James, one of the sons of James IV, who died in infancy. He was certainly attached to the court before the birth of James V, as the ‘Treasurer's Accounts’ show he received a quarterly payment of 10l. from 1 Nov. 1511 to 2 Aug. 1512. On 12 Oct.

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


text:
Page:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu/236

184 Off Cape Horn three men fell from aloft, one of whom was drowned while two struck the deck and were killed. The bodies of the men who died were sewn up in canvas with holystones at their feet, and were buried in the sea. Captain Waterman read the funeral service over their remains, but the ship was not hove to as the braces were never allowed to be started except when absolutely necessary, owing to the difficulty and danger of handling the yards with such an inferior crew. The bodies of the two men who attempted to murder the chief officer were taken from where they fell and lowered into the sea. Many years afterward Captain Waterman told me that he could not bring himself to read the Christian burial service over these corpses, but that he gave the crew permission to take the bodies forward, and offered them canvas, holystones, and a prayer-book with which to hold their own service, but none of the crew would volunteer to bury these men.

The Challenge had moderate winds the whole passage, excepting a succession of westerly gales off Cape Horn, and with her wretched crew besides, there was really no opportunity properly to test her speed. Her best day's run was only 336 miles, with the wind abeam and skysails set. She was 55 days from Sandy Hook to Cape Horn, thence 34 days to the equator in the Pacific, and 19 days from the equator to San Francisco. The great wonder is, not that Captain Waterman made such a fine passage, but that he succeeded in getting his ship to San Francisco at all.

Soon after the Challenge rounded to and let go

title: Page:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu/236


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/296

Rh 1511 he took part as an actor before James and Margaret Tudor at Holyrood, and 3l. 4s. was paid for his ‘play coat of blue and yellow taffeties.’ James V was born on 12 April 1512, and Lyndsay himself relates that he became an usher (hostiarius) to the young prince, an office he continued to hold till June 1522, with a yearly salary of 40l. In some of the entries in the treasurer's books he is styled ‘Keeper of the kingis gracis person.’ When the weird apparition of an old man appeared in St. Michael's Church, Linlithgow, and warned the king against the campaign which ended at Flodden, Robert Lindsay of Pitscottie [q. v.] refers to Lyndsay and John Inglis (the king's marshal), then young men, and special servants to the king, as ‘being present beside the king, who thought they might have speired [asked] further tidings of the man.’ The historian must have known Lyndsay, but he does not name him as his authority. Buchanan goes further, and says: ‘Amongst those who stood next the king was David Lyndsay of the Mount, a man of unsuspected probity and veracity, attached to literature, and during life invariably opposed to falsehood; from whom, unless I had received the story as narrated, vouched of truth, I had omitted to notice it as one of the commonly reported fables.’ Few ghost stories have had better vouchers. The duties of Lyndsay as attendant on the infant king are described in more than one poem. He carried the prince in his arms, sang and played to him, and amused him by disguising himself as ‘the greislie gaist of Gye,’ or told fairy tales of ‘Red Etin’ and ‘Gyre Carlyng,’ the romances of Tyre, Thebes, and Troy, the deeds of Arthur, and ‘the stories of leal lovers.’ At a later date, in the ‘Complaint of the Papyngo,’ he describes the ideal of the instruction of a prince, which he attempted to realise as James grew from boy to manhood. But Gavin Dunbar, afterwards archbishop of Glasgow, and not Lyndsay, is described as the king's master, or chief tutor, with John Bellenden, archdeacon of Moray, as his assistant. Lyndsay was only his playfellow.

In 1522 Lyndsay married Janet Douglas, already like himself in the royal service, and described in the records after her marriage as the king's seamstress, receiving 10l. a year. Neither Lyndsay's position nor that of his wife indicates that they belonged to the highest rank of the landed gentry. Lyndsay's sympathies were from the first with the people, and his writings show that, while taking part in the life of the court, he did not hesitate to rebuke its vices. He was a personal favourite of the young king, but protested against his immorality and the flattery of his false friends. In June 1526 a revolution placed Angus at the head of the government, nominally carried on in the name of the young king, who was treated as a cipher by the contending parties [see under ]. The royal tutors, Dunbar and Bellenden, as well as Lyndsay, were dismissed. Lyndsay alludes in ‘The Complaint’ to the ‘new rewlaris,’ taking

When in July 1528 James escaped from the domination of Angus, he promoted the guides of his boyhood, and not later than 1529 Lyndsay was appointed Lyon king of arms, with an annual grant out of the lands of Luthrie in Fife, as his fee, and the honour of knighthood. Henceforth he discharged the double office of head of the College of Heralds and poet laureate of the Scottish court. In the former capacity he took part in several embassies of the reign, while in the latter he expressed with the greatest freedom his views on the reformation of church and state, and became the poet of the Scottish Reformation, as Dunbar had been of the Scottish Renaissance.

The literary production of Lyndsay, like that of Knox, began late. He was already a man of thirty-seven when he wrote, according to Chalmers towards the end of 1528, his first poem ‘The Dreme,’ but as this was not printed till after his death, by Samuel Jascuy, in Paris, in 1558, the date of composition depends on internal evidence. It cannot have been circulated before the overthrow of Angus in 1528. The reference to the king seems to imply that his boyhood was already past, while the poet says of himself that his youth was now ‘nere over blawin.’ Laing suggests an emendation to ‘lang ower blawin,’ which would harmonise better with Lyndsay's own age, but is against the rules of textual criticism. ‘The Dreme,’ a common form of mediæval poetry, is introduced by an epistle to King James, and a prologue, which represents the poet overcome by Morpheus on a wintry and stormy night, when ‘Dame Remembrance’ conducts him, like Dante, through earth to the lowest hell, from hell to purgatory, thence to earth, and finally to heaven. His request that he might remain in heaven is refused, and the vision takes a rapid survey of the kingdoms of the earth, closing with a description of Scotland. A reply to the poet's question whence the poverty of Scotland arises is given by ‘John the Commounweill,’ who attributes it to the robbery and oppres-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/297

Rh sion rife on the borders, in the highlands, and the isles, and the want of justice and policy, which will not be supplied till Scotland is ‘gydit’ Be wysedome of ane gude auld prudent kyng.

For the proverb is ‘full trew:’ Wo to the realme that hes ower young ane king.

In this poem Lyndsay still expresses his belief in purgatory, and adores the Virgin, while he trusts to the king when he comes of age for the needed reforms in church and state. Next year, 1529, in ‘The Complaynt to the King,’ he rejoices that he has lived to see the day when the new regent, Angus, and his party have ‘trotted over Tweed,’ and ‘thou [i.e. James V] to no man art subjected.’

In 1530, under cover of ‘The Testament and Complaynt of our Soverane Lordis Papyngo,’ he denounces with greater boldness the abuses of the court, prelates, and nobles. The ‘envoi’ indicates that this piece, like his other early poems, was privately circulated, probably in manuscript. In a shorter poem he answers the king's ‘Flyting,’ in which, under a thin disguise of imitating the coarseness of the royal verses, he rebukes the licentiousness of his master, and exhorts him to a virtuous marriage with ‘ane buckler furth of France.’ The confession of his own immorality in early life, and regret for its consequences, may have been a rhetorical artifice to enable him to deal the more plainly with the king. In ‘The Complaynt of Bagsche, the Kingis auld Hound, to Bawtie, the Kingis best belovit Dog, and his Companions,’ composed a few years later, his satire is turned against the courtiers, who during their term of royal favour indulged in violence. Probably under the name of ‘Lanceman Lyndsay's Dog,’ he praises himself as a loyal and peaceable subject.

In June 1531 Lyndsay went on his first embassy as Lyon king, with Sir John Campbell of Lundy, and David Panter, the king's secretary, to the court of the Emperor Charles V. The embassy, which was appointed by the parliament in the preceding April, obtained a renewal of the alliance between Scotland and the Netherlands for a second term of 100 years. According to the only extant letter of Lyndsay (written from Antwerp on 23 Aug., when he was returning home), the emperor and his sister Margaret, queen of Hungary, then governess of the Netherlands, admitted the envoys to an audience at Brussels on the 6th. He remained in Brussels over seven weeks, to negotiate matters relating to the Scottish merchants, and was able to deny rumours of James V's death which came from England. He drew up a memoir for the king, unfortunately lost, of ‘the gret tournament’ given in honour of the queen of Hungary's confirmation as regent. During his absence a writ passed the seals in favour of his wife in certain lands on the Mill Hill of Cupar, and as she was confirmed in the conjunct fee of both his estates of Garmylton and the Mount in the same year, and again in 1538 and 1542, the conjecture that their marriage was not happy appears ill founded. Lyndsay was doubtless engaged on embassies in connection with the early projects for the king's marriage. It is certain that in the spring of 1536, when the choice had fallen on Marie de Bourbon, Lyndsay accompanied the Duke of Albany and other envoys, although his name does not appear among the signatories of the treaty of marriage concluded at Cremieux in Dauphiné on 6 March 1536. Probably he remained in France till the arrival of James in person, and took part in the amusements with which his marriage to Madeline, the daughter of the French king, was celebrated in Notre-Dame on 1 Jan. 1537. The lively account of them by Robert Lindsay of Pitscottie was perhaps dictated by his clansman, the Lyon king.

When the fragile Madeline died, within forty days of her landing in Scotland, Lyndsay wrote ‘The Deploration of the Death of Queen Magdalene,’ in which he describes the pageants he had prepared for her reception in Edinburgh. Lyndsay took an active share in the festivities that celebrated, in May 1538, the marriage of James to his second wife, Mary of Guise. When James met her at St. Andrews, at the east end of the gate of the new abbey, there was made for her a high ‘triumphand arch be Sir David Lyndsay quha causit ane greyt cloud to cum out of the hevins down aboue the zeit [gate], out of the quhilk cloude cam downe ane fair lady most lyk ane angell, having the keyis of Scotland in hir hand, and delyverit thayme to the queenis grace in signe and taikin that all the harts of Scotlande were opin for receiving of the queen's grace.’ He also composed verses for the occasion, ‘desyring hir to feir God and to serve him, and to reverence and obey hir husband.’ These verses are not preserved, but his ‘Justing betwixt James Watson and John Barbour,’ two physicians in the king's service, which he composed about the same time, has survived, though it is the poorest of his poems. To the same period probably belongs one of the cleverest of his short satires, ‘Ane Supplication directit to the Kingis Grace in contemptioun of Syde Taillis.’ Lyndsay, like Knox, was moved to


text:
Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 17.jpg

 CHAPTER II

THE WAY TO FREEDOM

There is only one will in the universe just as there is only one mind. The one mind is the mind of God, the one will is the will of God. The mind of individual man is an individual or differentiated expression of the Infinite mind, and the largeness of this human mind depends upon how much of the one mind man may decide to appropriate. Man has the freedom to incorporate in his own individual consciousness as much of the Infinite mind as he may desire; and as the mind of the Infinite is limitless, the mind of man may continue to become larger and larger without any end.

The will of the individual mind is a partial expression of the will of God, just as the force of growth that is in each branch is a part of the same force that is in the vine, and the power of the individual will depends upon how perfectly the individual mind works in harmony with the Infinite mind.

There is no limit to the power of the will of God, the divine will; therefore, when the human will is as large a part of the divine will as the individual mind can appropriate and apply, the human will necessarily becomes


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/298

Rh indignation by the long trains which all ranks of women began to wear, in imitation probably of Mary of Guise.

On the feast of the Epiphany, 6 Jan. 1540, Lyndsay produced, according to Mr. David Laing, the principal of his poems, ‘Ane Satyre of the Three Estaits.’ It was divided into interludes, an early form of the drama in Scotland, as in England, and was intended for dramatic representation. At least three performances of it are recorded, at Cupar, Linlithgow, and Greenside, then a suburb of Old, now part of New Edinburgh, on the low ground below the west slope of the Calton Hill, where the spectators probably sat. Mr. Chalmers thought the first representation was at Cupar in 1535, but reference is made in it to the battle of Pinky Cleuch, which was fought on 10 Sept. 1547, and Whit-Tuesday is mentioned as falling on 7 June, from which it follows that the Easter when it was played was on 17 April. The true date of the Cupar representation thus seems to belong to 1552. The first representation was probably at Linlithgow on the feast of the Epiphany, 6th Jan. 1540. Sir William Eure, on 26 Jan. of that year, sent to Cromwell notes of the interlude or play which he had received from a spectator, ‘a Scotsman of our sort,’ i.e. of the English party. The third known representation, that at Greenside, took place in 1554, before the queen regent, when Henry Charteris, the bookseller, who was present, states that it lasted from ‘nyne houris afore none till six houris at evin.’ In this piece Lyndsay denounced abuses in church and state with great frankness. Sir William Eure in his letter states that after the representation at Linlithgow ‘the king did call upon the Bishop of Glasgow, the Chancellor Dunbar, and the other bishops, exhorting them to reform their fashions and manner of living, saying that unless they did so he would send six of the proudest of them to his uncle of England, and as those were ordered, so he would order all the rest that would not amend. The chancellor answered that one word of his Grace's mouth would suffice them to be at his commandment, and the king hastily and angrily answered that he would gladly bestow any words of his mouth that could amend them.’ James V, before his French marriage and before Archbishop Beaton had acquired commanding influence over him, was undoubtedly favourable to reform in the church, and he probably encouraged Lyndsay in his attack on the bishops. But it is startling to find that Lyndsay was allowed to exhibit his piece so late as 1540, only two years before the death of the king, and still more to repeat it during the regency of Mary of Guise. Were not Eure's letters conclusive evidence of the date of the representation at Linlithgow, we should be tempted with Chalmers to ascribe the ‘Satire’ to an earlier date, and to conjecture that it may have been modified in subsequent representations. The complete work, according to the Bannatyne MS., the only extant manuscript version, consisted of eight interludes. The first, ‘The Auld Man and his Wyfe,’ from its local references, must have been specially written for the representation at Cupar as an advertisement to the play. The second, ‘The Temptation of King Humanity by Dame Sensuality,’ probably opened the representations at Linlithgow and Greensyde. Two interludes, which do not concern the main plot and may have been sometimes omitted, followed: (3) ‘The Puir Man and the Pardoner,’ in which the crying evil of the sale of indulgences which had penetrated to Scotland is exposed; (4) ‘The Sermon of Folly,’ in which there are again allusions to Fife as I hard never, in all my lyfe, Ane Bischop cam to preich in Fyfe, proving that it must have been written for a Fife audience. The plot is then resumed in (5) ‘The three Vices, i.e. Flattery’ (‘now come out of France’), ‘Deceit, and Falsehood,’ which mislead the king; (6) ‘Truth and Chastity,’ in which those virtues are overcome by the Vices; (7) ‘The Parliament of Correction,’ from which the ‘Satire’ took its name of ‘The Three Estates,’ and where the poet offers his proposals for reform; and finally (8) where ‘The Three Vices’ are given over to punishment. The first editor was Robert Charteris in 1594; and all recent editors, Chalmers, Pinkerton, Sibbald, and Laing, have allowed themselves great latitude in the arrangement of the poem, as probably Lyndsay himself did in its representations. The number of separate characters represented and the variety of topics treated make the general effect a medley, in which there is much that is commonplace, little that we should now deem poetry, but many pieces of powerful invective, exhorting the king to virtuous government and the people to reformation of the evils in the administration of church and state. A sub-plot is carried through the poem by Common Theft, a borderer, who comes to Fife and steals the Earl of Rothes' hackney and Lord Lyndsay's ‘brown jonet,’ for which he is executed.

The next composition by Lyndsay was in a different field. ‘The Register of Arms of the Scottish Nobility and Gentry’ was completed, under his direction as Lyon king, in 1542, but remained unpublished until 1821,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/299

Rh when it was printed from the Advocates' Library MS., acquired with the other collections of Sir James Balfour, and was reprinted in 1878. It was submitted by Balfour on 9 Dec. 1630 to the privy council, was recognised as an authentic register, and is the best source for early Scottish heraldry. The manuscript contains a few additions by later Lyon kings, but their blazonry is very inferior to Lyndsay's.

James V died on 16 Dec. 1542, and two years later Lyndsay was sent to the court of Henry VIII to restore, as was customary, the insignia of the Garter. A letter of Henry VIII, dated Hampton Court, 24 May 1544, acknowledges to the Earl of Arran the receipt of the statutes of the order, along with the collar and garter, brought to him by the Lyon king. On 29 May 1546 Beaton was killed at his castle of St. Andrews, and Lyndsay, whose sympathies were with Norman Leslie [q. v.] and the other perpetrators of the deed, composed a poem, ‘The Tragedy of the Cardinal,’ shortly after January 1547, in which year it was printed in London, though without date, by John Daye. The tragedy is supposed to be spoken by the cardinal himself, who appears in a vision to the poet. He recounts his life, lamenting his fate, and exhorts both temporal princes and his brethren, the bishops, to be warned by it. The often-quoted lines,

commonly attributed to Lyndsay, do not occur in this or any of his known poems. The statement that Lyndsay was one of the protestant party who, like Knox, took refuge in the castle of St. Andrews after the murder, is disproved by the record of parliament, which shows that he sat as commissioner for Cupar on 4 Aug. 1546, and on 14 Aug. he was sent to summon the party in the castle for treason, which he did on 17 Dec.; but receiving no answer he departed and told ‘the governor he could have no speaking of us’ (State Papers, Henry VIII, v. 581). In the following spring he took part in the conference in the great kirk of St. Andrews with Henry Balnaves and John Rough, which ended in the call to Knox to preach in public. This is the act in his life which most clearly demonstrated his sympathy with the protestant party; and, taken along with the tendency of his poems, especially those of later date, it renders the elaborate essay of Lord Lindsay (Lives of the Lindsays, i. 252–62), to prove he retained a considerable part of the old Roman doctrine, a hopeless attempt. In 1548 he was sent on an embassy to Christian III of Denmark, to ask for ships to protect the coasts of Scotland against the English, and to secure free trade with Denmark for Scottish merchants. He succeeded in the latter, but not in the former object. When at Copenhagen, Lyndsay met John Macalpine, called Machabeus, formerly prior of the Dominicans of Perth, but who embraced the reformed doctrines and became professor of theology in the Danish university. It is a singular fact that Lyndsay's next work, ‘Ane Dialog betuix Experience and ane Courteour,’ the first edition or form of ‘The Monarchy,’ claims to have been printed ‘at the command and expensis of Doctor Machabeus, in Copenhaven in 1552.’ Laing and other bibliographers suppose this to be a fictitious name and place for its publication, and assign it to a well-known printer, John Scot of St. Andrews. It is not, however, impossible that Machabeus may have been at the expense of printing the ‘Dialogue,’ whose title-page does not state that it was printed, but only that Machabeus lived, at Copenhagen. The remaining works of Lyndsay are ‘The Historie and Testament of Squyer Meldrum’ (1550?)—the laird of a small estate, Cleish in Fife, who after various adventures in love and war, in the reigns of James IV and James V, became a tainer of Lord Lindsay, and lived in his house at Struthers till his death, when he entrusted the order of his funeral procession to his friend, Sir David Lyndsay of the Mount—and ‘The Monarchy’ (1554), dedicated to ‘James, earl of Arran, our prince and protector,’ and his brother, John Hamilton, archbishop of St. Andrews. This work also claims to have been printed at the expense of Dr. Machabeus. It is a long poem, of 6,333 lines, with a secondary title, ‘A Dialogue of the Miserabill Estait of this World,’ and contains a narrative of the four empires, Assyria, Persia, Greece, and Rome, which last was succeeded by the papacy. It recalls Knox's sermon on the same subject. The basis of both was a prophetical exposition of Daniel, by Melanchthon, published in German in 1532 under the name of ‘John Carion's Chronicle,’ which was translated into Latin, and into English in 1550, and became a popular manual of universal history. The papal power was represented as Antichrist, and the temporal power as distracted by war. So that both sun and moon, the pope and the emperor, according to a common similitude of the middle ages, were ‘denude of light.’ In this work, though tedious from its length, some of Lyndsay's most far-sighted views appear. He advocates the use of the vulgar tongue, not merely for poetry, but for religious services and legal procedure (l. 650 et seq.). He attacks the worship of images (l. 2279 et


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/300

Rh seq.), the superstition of pilgrimages (l. 2360 et seq.), the corruption of the court of Rome (l. 4740 et seq.), the rack-rents of the lords and barons (l. 5700–1), the injustice and delays both of the civil (l. 5752) and the ecclesiastical courts (l. 5765), and the extravagant dress of the women (l. 5829 et seq.)

Two shorter pieces, ‘Kittie's Confessioun,’ a frank satire on the confessional, and ‘Ane description of Peder Coffer, having na regard to honestie in these Vocatiouns,’ an exposure of pedlars' tricks, are attributed to him by the Bannatyne MS. As that manuscript was written about 1568, the ascription is probably correct, although the poems preserved in it are not always correctly assigned. These poems, however, are quite in Lyndsay's style and exhibit him as an all-round reformer, one of those minds which delight in detecting and denouncing every form of corruption. He last appears as a herald on 16 Jan. 1554, when he held a chapter of heralds for the trial of William Carruthers, a messenger. He died before 18 April 1555, as is proved by a gift of that date, of the casualty of marriage, due by his brother Alexander, which mentions his death. He left no children. His office of Lyon king, after being held by Sir Robert Forman of Luthrie (1555–67) and Sir William Stewart, who was deposed and executed in 1568, was conferred on his youngest brother, Sir David Lyndsay of Rathillet (1568–91), and subsequently on a second Sir David Lyndsay of the Mount, son of his brother, Alexander, who resigned in favour of his son-in-law, Sir Jerome Lyndsay of Annatland, in June 1621.

The character of Lyndsay is stamped on his face as it appears in all his works, and on the rude woodcuts prefixed to the quarto edition of his poems published at Paris in 1558, and the Edinburgh edition by Hart in 1634. Unfortunately, no original portrait exists. The description of him by Scott in ‘Marmion’ is well known.

Lyndsay was a satirist, powerful in invective, fluent in style, and abounding in proverbial philosophy. But his poems were of local, and to a large extent of temporary interest. Yet these very limitations gave them an immediate fame and more extensive currency than the works of any other early Scottish poet, and render them invaluable to students of the time of James V. It passed into a proverb for what was not worth knowing, ‘You will not find that in David Lyndsay,’ and his writings were at one time in the library of every castle and the shelves of many cottages of Scotland. The Reformation, in achieving which he bore so prominent a part, gave the first shock to this popularity when it passed from the stage of Knox, whose prose frequently reminds us of Lyndsay's verse—invective in its coarseness as well as its power—to the second stages represented by Andrew Melville. To the Calvinist and puritan his plain speech was abhorrent, his drama irreligious, and his satire hardly intelligible. The decay of the use of the Scottish dialect contributed to the decline of his reputation. In the century which followed the union of the kingdoms his poems were less frequently published. In the present century their philological and historical value has secured a renewal of interest in them. Lyndsay occupies an important place in the history of the Scottish dialect and in the history of the British drama. The satire of ‘The Three Estates’ affords one of the best illustrations of the transition from the mediæval religious miracle play, through the secular masque, the fools' play, and the interludes, to the Elizabethan tragedy and comedy. But in Scotland the Reformation killed the drama, and Lyndsay's satire of the ‘Three Estates’ remains almost unique, although we know the names of a few other early dramas. Lyndsay's historical position as one of the representative Scottish reformers is secure. It has been doubted whether he personally made the formal change from the Roman to the reformed creed. But this was only because that creed had not been formulated, and was during his life in course of formation. The protest against the papacy, as it then existed, was not uttered more boldly by Luther or by Knox than by Lyndsay. If some traces remain of the faith in which he had been brought up, they are not distinctively Roman. He was as pronounced a reformer of the state as of the church, and gave no quarter to the oppression of the nobles, the abuses of the law, or the vices of the court. He was a reformer before the Reformation, and an advocate for the ‘Common Weil’ before the word ‘Commonwealth’ had a place in English speech. A full bibliography of his works, with facsimiles of the title-pages of the chief editions, is given in Laing's complete edition, Edinburgh, 1879, iii. 222–98. A French printer, Samuel Jascuy, in 1558, reprinted, imperfectly, in Paris, ‘The Dialogue,’ ‘The Complaint of the Papyngo,’ ‘The Dream,’ and ‘The Tragedy of the Cardinal,’ taking the ‘Dialogue’ word for word from the later edition of ‘The Monarchy’ in 1554. This and other early editions which appeared in Paris and London prove the interest at that time taken in Scottish poetry in France and England, and suggest that he had an influence on the cause of reformation in those countries as well as his own. A translation of the ‘Dialogue,’ through


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu/603

 line 1, fig. 1). Both these greys, however, refined themselves in course of time into white.  The hat and the long coat and breeches remained the uniform of line infantry almost everywhere up to the advent of the shako and the coatee about 1790–1820. The gradual evolution of these two garments, from the comfortable civilian clothes of 1690 to the stiff, precise military garments of 1790, can be traced in a few words. The brim of the felt hat was first looped up on one side for convenience, then, for appearance’ sake, on the other, and so became the three-cornered cocked hat, fringed with feathers, lace or braid, of Marlborough’s wars. Then came the fashion of looping up before and behind, which produced the hat called the “Khevenhüller,” or the broadside-on cocked hat. Lastly, came the purely decorative, lace-looped “fore-and-aft” pattern, as worn in many states to-day. But before this came into vogue the cocked hat had practically disappeared from the ordinary ranks of all armies. It may be said that so long as the cocked hat survived in its simple, rank-and-file form, uniforms retained much of their looseness. Though the long skirts that rendered great coats unnecessary were looped back, and the ample cuffs of Marlborough’s time were becoming narrower until they were at last sewn down to the sleeve, yet the military costume was in all essentials the civil costume of the time—long coat, hat, sleeved waistcoat, breeches and gaiters.

But other influences were at work. The principal was the introduction into armies of Slavonic irregulars, which tended to restrict line infantry and cavalry to parade drill and to pitched battles in parade order. This, and their complete separation from the civil population, stiffened their costume until it became “soldierly.” Frederick the Great, indeed, could not have developed the infantry fire power that he needed if his soldiers had had tight sleeves, but in his old age the evil of sacrificing comfort to smartness attained a height which, except in the 1820–1840 period, was never surpassed. The figure of a Prussian fusilier, Plate I. line 1, No. 7 (in which by mistake a slung sword is shown) shows this process beginning. The stock has made its appearance, soon to stiffen into a cloth collar, under which, as if it were not already tight enough, another stock in due course came to be worn. The flapped cuffs, shown in the British figure No. 5, have become plain round cuffs, above which are embroidery stripes and buttons which at one time laced the flaps of the cuff together and now survive as the “guard-stripe.” This may be called the first instance of the dummy adornments, which are so marked in modern full-dress uniforms. Similarly the former cloth turnback on the front of the coat has even in 1756 been cut off, the buttons and embroidered loops that retained it being kept as decorations.

Many of these specially military adornments were borrowed from the national costumes of the irregulars themselves. Their head-gear in particular drove out the cocked hat. The grenadier cap, now a towering bearskin, was its first successful rival, the shako the next. The grenadier cap was, in the first instance, a limp conical cap (identical with the hussar cap), edged with fur and having a tassel at the end. Soon the fur became more prominent in the front, and the tail disappeared. Then the cloth mitre-cap (Plate I., line 1, fig. 6) appeared. This was originally a field-service cap, with ear-flaps and sunshade. But it stiffened about 1775 into a fur cap of the same shape (with which sometimes the old cloth tail is found), and this in turn evolved, through the fuller but still narrow and forward-pointing bearskin of Peninsular days, into the great fur cap of grenadiers and fusiliers of the present time. The mitre-shaped cloth cap survives in a few Russian and Prussian regiments. As early as 1755, as the Prussian figure shows, a conical leather cap with a large brass plate in front had come into existence. This held its ground for some time, and the grenadier cap of to-day in Russia and Prussia is a metal copy of the mitre field-service cap itself. A curious derivative of the low fur cap with a peak in front and a bag-tail behind worn by some 17th- and 18th-century grenadiers is the head-dress of the Russian horse-grenadiers.

The peak has become the helmet, the fur a “sausage” across the cap from ear to ear, and the back part of the helmet is covered by the bag-tail.

The Hungarian hussars introduced the jacket and the busby. The latter was originally a conical cap with fur edge, but the fur became higher until there was nothing left of the cap but the ornamental “busby-bag” of to-day. It would appear also as if the hussars brought the shako to western Europe. This is a conical, bell-topped, or cylindrical head-dress of stiff material, commonly leather. Its prototype, the tall cylindrical cap of the 18th-century hussars, was tilted on one side and wound round with a very narrow bag-tail, the last few inches of which, adorned with a tassel, hung down. But the shako itself succeeded, as nothing else succeeded, in being accepted by line infantry and cavalry, and after passing through numerous forms it remains in every army to-day, either as a low rigid cap (Germany, England and Austria), a stiffened or limp képi (France and Italy), or the flat-topped peaked cap which is the most common military head-dress of modern Europe.

All these adjuncts came in the first place from the national costume of imported auxiliaries. So also did the lancer cap, which, originally the Polish czapka, was a cylindrical cap, the upper part of which could be pushed up or down after the fashion of a bellows or accordion, with a square top. The original form is seen in Plate I., line 2, fig. 4, and the stiffened development of it in Plate I., line 3, fig. 1. The British lancer cap (Plate II., line 1, No. 2) has still a full middle portion, but in Austria and Germany this has dwindled to a very narrow neck (Plate II., line 3, No. 6; Plate IV., line 1, No. 7). The line infantry and cavalry coat, full-skirted in the first instance, retained its original length until about 1780, but from that time onwards (probably in most cases in the interests of the colonel’s pocket) it becomes, little by little, shorter and scantier (Plate I., line 2, Nos. 2, 3, and 5), until at last it is a “coatee,” not as long as the present-day tunic (Plate I., Line 2, Nos. 6 and 8), or a swallow-tailed coat (Plate I., line 3, figs. 1–3). This, of course, did away with the protection afforded by the full skirt, and necessitated the introduction of the great coat, which even to-day in some cases is worn, without the tunic, over the “vest” that represents the sleeved waistcoat (Plate II., line 2, No. 3), formerly worn under the long skirted coat. The white breeches and gaiters, retained to the last, gradually gave way to trousers and ankle boots in 1800–1820.

Meanwhile another form of head-dress, which was purely military and owed nothing to Poland or Hungary, came into vogue. This was the helmet, which had disappeared from the infantry about 1650–1670, and the cavalry thirty years afterwards. It took two forms, both of which possessed some of the characteristics of ancient Greek and Roman helmets. These were a small helmet with sausage-shaped ornament from front to back, worn chiefly by British light dragoons and artillery (Plate I., line 2, fig. 7), and the towering crested helmet worn by the French, British and Austrians. The French cuirassiers and dragoons (Plate I., line 2, No. 3) had, and still have, long horsehair tails dependent from the crest. The Austrian infantry helmet, worn with the white coat, similar to, but smaller than, that shown in Plate II., line 2, No. 5, had no ornament, but the British heavy cavalry helmet (Plate I., line 2, No. 8) resembled that of the French. To-day, besides the French, the Austrian dragoons and Italian heavy cavalry have this form of helmet (Plate II., line 3, No. 1, and Plate IV., line 2, No. 8).

It has been said above that the coatee and the shako are the principal novelties in European military costumes of Napoleon’s time. To these should be added the replacement of the gaitered breeches by trousers, and the adoption of hussar and lancer uniforms of ever-growing sumptuousness, in which the comfort that had originally belonged to these national irregular costumes was entirely sacrificed. After Waterloo, indeed, all traces of the old-fashioned coat disappeared, and, except for the doubtful gain of tight-fitting “overalls,” the soldier was more showy and worse off in comfort and convenience than ever before or since. One or two examples may be quoted. In George IV.’s time

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu/603


text:
Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 18.jpg

18 immensely strong; since the individual mind can appropriate a larger and a larger measure of the divine will, there is no limit to the power of will that can be developed in the mind of man.

To develop the true will, the first essential is to realize that there is but one will, and that we will with the one will just as we live the one life and think with the one mind, though in our thinking, living and willing, we do not, as a rule, do justice to that part of the whole which it is our privilege to use. We think, live and will too much as isolated entities instead of as divine beings eternally united with the Supreme.

The second essential is to realize that the divine will works only for better things and greater things. The path of the divine will is upward and onward forever, and its power is employed exclusively in building more lofty mansions for the soul. Therefore the will of God does not produce sickness, adversity or death; on the contrary, the will of God eternally wills to produce wholeness, harmony and life.

The ills of personal life are not produced by divine will; they are produced by man's inability to properly use that part of divine will that is being expressed in his mind, and his inability comes because man does not always apply his will in harmony with divine will.

When man uses his will as his own isolated power, he separates his mind more and more


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/306

Rh sister of Robert II. The first known proprietor of Crawford was William Lindsay of Ercildoun (d. circa 1200), justiciary of Lothian 1189–98, and a party to the treaty of 1174. By his wife Marjory, daughter of Henry, prince of Scotland, and sister of William the Lion, he had three sons, Sir David of Crawford (d. 1214), justiciary of Lothian, Sir Walter of Lamberton, and William of Luffness. Sir David married Aleonora de Limesay, coheiress of the barons of Wolverley. His son, also named Sir David, and also in 1235 justiciary of Lothian, was on his death in 1241 succeeded by his brother Sir Gerard, on whose death in 1249 the estates passed to his sister Alice de Lindsay, wife of Sir Henry Prinkeney of Northamptonshire. In 1297 the Scottish estates, including Crawford, were bestowed by the Scottish nation on (fl. 1283–1309), great-grandson of William de Lindsay of Luffness; grandson of Sir David Lindsay, lord of Brenwevil and the Byres, justiciary of Lothian 1242–9, and a party to the treaty of 1244; and son of Sir David, who was chamberlain of Scotland in 1255, and is supposed to have died in the crusades in 1268. Sir Alexander was also high chamberlain of Scotland under Alexander III. He was one of the barons who in 1296 swore fealty to Edward I, but soon afterwards joined Wallace. On 9 July 1297 he, however, swore fealty to Edward (Cal. Documents relating to Scotland, vol. ii. entry 909), and at the same time became surety for Robert Bruce, earl of Carrick (ib. entry 910). On 31 Aug. 1298 he received the lands of James, late steward of Scotland (Documents illustrative of the Hist. of Scotland, ed. Stevenson, ii. 161). Subsequently he, however, again joined the patriotic party, and he was one of those excepted by Edward in 1304–5 from the general pardon then proclaimed. He was one of the barons who in the convention of 1309 acknowledged Robert Bruce as sovereign. His son Sir David, described by Wyntoun as ‘true and of steadfast fay,’ was prisoner in the castle of Devizes from April 1308 (Cal. Documents relating to Scotland, iii. 188) to November 1314 (ib. p. 402), when he was exchanged. Sir David was one of the nobles who in 1320 signed the letter to the pope asserting the independence of Scotland. In 1346 he was appointed keeper of Edinburgh Castle, and in 1349 and again in 1351 he was sent as commissioner to England to treat for the ransom of David I. By his wife Mary, coheiress of the Abernethies, he had four sons: David, killed at the battle of Durham in 1346; Sir James, eighth lord of Crawford; Sir William of Byres; and Sir Alexander, father of Sir David, first earl of Crawford [q. v.]

Sir James, ninth lord of Crawford, probably succeeded his father in 1357. He was present at the coronation of Robert II at Stirling, 26 March 1371. By this king he was made sheriff of Lanark and also justiciary north of the Forth. In 1371 and also in 1381 he was a commissioner to treat with England. On 4 Nov. 1381 (Exchequer Rolls, iii. 657), not 1382 or 1383, as stated by different chroniclers, he, from jealousy of his influence with the king, slew Sir John Lyon of Glammis—a deed which originated an enduring feud between the Lyons and the Lindsays. Lindsay fled into exile, during which he made a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Thomas à Becket at Canterbury, but ultimately, through the intervention of the Earls of Douglas and March, he was in 1383 recalled and pardoned. In the same year he accompanied the Earls of Moray and Douglas in an expedition into England.

With other Lindsays Sir James fought under the Earl of Douglas at the battle of Otterburn, 19 Aug. 1388, and, as recorded by Froissart, was one of those who discovered Douglas when he lay dying of his wounds. Lindsay is probably the ‘lorde of Bowghan in armure bryght’ of the old ballad on the battle of Otterburn, and is mentioned in the ‘Scotichronicon’ as ‘Lord of Crawford and Buchan.’ His adventures after the battle are recorded at length by Froissart. He had a personal encounter with Sir Matthew Redman, governor of Berwick, who after his sword had been struck out of his hand yielded himself prisoner to Lindsay, and giving his word to return to Edinburgh by St. Michael's day was allowed to proceed to Newcastle. During the same night Sir James and his squire lost their way on the heath, and on the following morning rode unawares into the midst of an English force under the Bishop of Durham, in the belief that they were friends, and were taken prisoners. Subsequently it was agreed that he should be exchanged for Sir Matthew Redman, and although intimation was sent by the king from Cambridge not to release him until further authority was given (Cal. Documents relating to Scotland, vol. iv. entry 384), he was finally set at liberty.

During his absence Robert de Keith had quarrelled with Lindsay's wife, who was his aunt, and had besieged her in her castle of Fyvie, Aberdeenshire. Accordingly in 1395 Lindsay attacked and defeated Keith. Not long after Lindsay was sent with the Earl of Moray to settle the differences between the Clans Chattan and Kay, when it was


text:
Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 19.jpg

Rh from the source of his power; in consequence, the power of his will becomes weaker, and he necessarily fails to accomplish what he has in view. He also falls apart from the one ascending current of life; he gets out of harmony with the true order of things, and sickness, trouble, adversity and want invariably follow.

The true use of the will is to apply the will in the full recognition of the oneness of the human will with the divine will. My will is as much of the divine will as I am using now, and it is my privilege to use as much of the divine will as I may desire. To constantly think of my will and the divine will as the same will, is to place my mind in such perfect harmony with limitless power of divine will that I can appropriate this power in larger and larger measure, and the more I appropriate, the stronger becomes the power of will in me.

When the individual mind is in such perfect harmony with the Supreme mind that the divine will can be given free and full expression, the will of the individual mind becomes invincible; the secret therefore of developing a powerful will is found here, and here alone.

The true will is never domineering nor antagonistic; neither does it ever apply the force of resistance. If you are antagonistic or have a tendency to resist everything that is not to your liking it is proof conclusive that you are not in harmony with divine


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/307

Rh finally arranged, as recorded by Wyntoun, and described in Scott's ‘Fair Maid of Perth,’ that the dispute should be decided by a combat of thirty picked men from each clan before the king on the North Inch of Perth. Lindsay died some time before 22 April 1396 (Exchequer Rolls, iii. 386). Lindsay in 1392 founded a convent of Trinity Friars, Dundee, which subsequently became a hospital for decayed burgesses.

By his wife, Margaret Keith, daughter of Sir William Keith [q. v.], great marischal of Scotland, he left two daughters, Margaret, married to Sir Thomas Colville, and Euphemia, to Sir John Herries of Terregles. As he had no male issue, the barony of Crawford passed to his cousin-german, Sir David Lindsay of Glenesk, first earl of Crawford [q. v.]

LINDSAY, JOHN (d. 1335), bishop of Glasgow, belonged to the family of the Lindsays of Lambertoun in Berwickshire, and was descended from Sir Walter de Lindsay (d. 1222), second son of William Lindsay of Crawford, justiciary of Scotland under William the Lion. He was the son of Walter Lindsay of Lambertoun, and his name first appears as witness to one of the charters, dated about 1275, and preserved in the chartulary of Paisley. There is some doubt as to the exact date when he became bishop of Glasgow, and several writers have placed him, apparently in error, before Bishop John Wiseheart. The see was vacant at Christmas 1321, and most probably Lindsay was then appointed bishop. By a bull dated at Avignon 15 March 1323, Pope John XXII confirmed Lindsay in his office as bishop of Glasgow, reserving the post which Lindsay had formerly occupied as a prebendary in Glasgow Cathedral for one of the Italian favourites at the papal court. No sooner had the bishop been installed than Robert I directed him to bestow his vacant office upon the king's clerk, Walter de Twynam, and Lindsay acceded to this request, while protesting that his action should not prejudice the rights of the pope. There are numerous charters in existence to prove that Lindsay was bishop of Glasgow from 1325 till the death of Robert I in 1329, one of the most important, dated 4 March 1327–8, being the confirmation by the king to the burgh of Dundee of the burghal privileges enjoyed from the time of William the Lion. He at first supported the claim of his relative, Edward Balliol, to the throne, but ultimately returned to his allegiance to the house of Bruce.

The year and method of Lindsay's death have been disputed. It is stated that ‘in 1335, returning from Flanders to Scotland with two ships, aboard which were 250 Scots, [he] was attacked at sea by a superior fleet of English, commanded by the Earls of Sarum and Huntingdon. The Scots vessels, being overpowered by numbers, were taken after an obstinate fight, in which many of both sides were killed, and the bishop, being mortally wounded in the head, immediately expired.’ Another account of this incident gives the date as 1337, and states that the bishop died of grief caused by the loss of his countrymen, and was buried at Wytsande. But he undoubtedly died in 1335, for the see was vacant in that year, and the sheriff of Dumfries rendered an account of the lands belonging to the late bishop in that county in 1335–6.

LINDSAY, JOHN, fifth (d. 1563), of the Byres, Haddingtonshire, was the eldest son of John, master of Lindsay, styled Sir John Lindsay of Pitcruvie, Fifeshire, by his wife Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Sir John Lundie or Lundin of Balgonie, Fifeshire. The Lindsays of the Byres were descended from William, son of Sir David Lindsay of Crawford (d. 1355?) [cf. art. , ninth Baron Crawford (d. 1396)]. Sir John Lindsay of the Byres (d. 1479) was created a lord of parliament in 1445, and from 1457 to 1466 was justiciary of Scotland beyond the Forth. David, second lord Lindsay (d. 1492), fought on the side of James III at Sauchieburn, 9 June 1488, and it was on his ‘grey courser’ that the king is said to have escaped from the battle (, p. 219). He was succeeded in turn by his brothers John (d. 1497), and by Patrick (d. 1526), who fought at Flodden in 1513, and was one of the guardians of James V. The fifth lord succeeded to the title on the death of his grandfather, the fourth Lord Lindsay, and in the same year was made sheriff of Fife (Acta Parl. Scot. ii. 605). About this time his support of Lennox in an attempt to rescue the young king from Angus exposed him to the wrath of the Douglases, but by giving ‘largely of his lands and gear,’ to them, he, according to Pitscottie, escaped ‘that envy for the present time’ (Chronicles, p. 330). On 27 June 1532 he was named an extraordinary


text:
User:84user

[ My SUL accounts] ; commons. wikipedia. mediawiki. meta. strategy. wikibooks. wikiquote. wiktionary. bugzilla

title: User:84user


text:
Page:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu/237

Rh anchor, in San Francisco Bay, she was boarded by a throng of crimps and runners who at once took the crew and their dunnage ashore. There was nothing unusual in this, for it happened nearly every day, captains and mates being powerless to prevent it. A gang of longshoremen would then be sent aboard at wages of from $3 to $5 an hour each, to heave up anchor, put the ship alongside the wharf, stow sails and clear up the decks. As these prosperous sons of toil were never in much of a hurry, it usually required from four to five hours to finish up these jobs, and meant a heavy expense to the ship-owner for work that should have been done by the crew.

When the crew of the Challenge got on shore, some of them had terrible tales to tell about their hardships and privations during the voyage; how they had been nearly starved to death; how some of the crew had starved to death or been murdered, and their bodies hove overboard like dead rats, and how six men had been shot from the mizzentopsail yard in a gale of wind off Cape Horn. According to these blatant imposter's, no such floating hell as the Challenge had ever before set sail upon the ocean, and as for Captain Waterman, he was a blood-thirsty, inhuman navigator, the like of whom had never been seen or heard of, since the days when Noah put his ship ashore among the mountains of Ararat. All this was, of course, profitable material for journalists, one impetuous knight of the pen actually proposing that Captain Waterman should be burned alive, until finally the publisher of this attack became frightened for his own safety,

title: Page:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu/237


text:
Page:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu/238

186 as he had incited the most dangerous set of men, perhaps, that ever existed in any seaport—ticket-of-leave from Australia, cut-throats from New Mexico, and drainings from the social gutters and cesspools of European ports.

At this moment San Francisco happened to be in one of the numerous stages of reform through which that amazing city has passed. It had recently emerged from a reign of lawlessness and mob rule under the guidance of a Vigilance Committee, and while this admirable body of citizens was not yet disbanded, it had in a measure relaxed its grasp upon public affairs. Now, a number of the newly-converted thugs, murderers, and outlaws of the town, whose necks had narrowly escaped the hangman's noose, formed themselves into a new "Vigilance Committee," to deal with Captain Waterman and the officers of the Challenge. These outcasts, crafty and unscrupulous as they were, possessed neither the courage nor the mental capacity to carry out their own plans. They accordingly called a public meeting, held somewhere among the sandhills, at which it was decided to "execute" Captain Waterman and his officers "on sight," and then burn or scuttle the vessel at her wharf. Naturally, the real Vigilance Committee were the first to learn of these proceedings, and at once took the captain and officers under their protection, holding themselves in readiness to scatter the mob should this measure become necessary.

The crowd that gathered at the sandhills consisted of two or three hundred men who had lately been hunted from one end of San Francisco to the

title: Page:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu/238


text:
Author:James Leigh Strachan-Davidson

Works

 * Selections from Polybius (1888) (transciption)
 * (1894)
 * Problems of the Roman Criminal Law, Volume 1 (1912) (transcription)
 * Problems of the Roman Criminal Law, Volume 2 (1912) (transcription)

title: Author:James Leigh Strachan-Davidson


text: Author:George Hardwicke Spooner

title: Author:George Hardwicke Spooner


text:
Page:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu/241

Rh other, and had prudently kept themselves stowed away in order to escape the righteous wrath of the Vigilance Committee. One can scarcely conceive anything more grimly grotesque than the spectacle of these inexperienced reformers, in their red flannel shirts and black slouched hats with pistols and bowie-knives stuck in their leather belts, and trousers tucked into the tops of their cowhide boots, the odor of the gin palace and dance-hall clinging to their unwashed skins and clothing, as they wended their way to Pacific Wharf, where the Challenge lay moored, and demanded that Captain Waterman and his officers be delivered over to them for purposes of justice.

As might have been expected, these gentlemen had vanished and no one but a few members of the Committee knew where they were. So finding that Captain John Land had been placed in command of the ship, the mob seized this venerable seaman, and for more than an hour wrangled among themselves as to whether they should shoot, drown, or hang him in place of Captain Waterman. They, however, concluded to hold him as a hostage, and walked their white-haired prisoner up to the office of Alsop & Co., the agents of the Challenge. By this time, the crowd had been considerably augmented and numbered about two thousand men, who filled the air of California Street with yells, curses, lewd jests, and ribald songs. They again demanded from the agents that their intended victims be given up, and six of the ringleaders forced their way with crowbars and axes into the house of Alsop & Co. At this point the bell of the Monumental Fire

title: Page:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu/241


text:
Author:John George Snead-Cox

Works

 * Jubilee-Tide in Rome (1888)
 * The Life of Cardinal Vaughan (1910)
 * Volume 1
 * Volume 2
 * Cox and the Juju Coast (1968)
 * Cox and the Juju Coast (1968)

title: Author:John George Snead-Cox


text:
Author:Francis Joseph Christopher Sheehy-Skeffington

Works

 * A Forgotten Small Nationality: Ireland and the War (c. 1916)
 * A Forgotten Small Nationality: Ireland and the War (c. 1916)

Works about Skeffington

 * British Militarism As I Have Known It (1916) by Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington


text:
Author:Albert Forbes Sieveking

Works

 * Gardens Ancient and Modern; an epitome of the literature of the garden-art (1899)
 * Worke for Cutlers; Or, a Merry Dialogue Betweene Sword, Rapier and Dagger. Acted in a shew in the famous Universitie of Cambridge A.D. l6l5. (1903)
 * Sir William Temple Upon the Gardens of Epicurcus, With Other XVIIth Century Garden Essays (1908)
 * The Sentiment of the Sword: A Country-House Dialogue (1911)

title: Author:Albert Forbes Sieveking


text:
Page:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu/242

188 House began to toll—the well-known signal that called the Vigilance Committee to arms—and long before the Marshal had finished reading the Riot Act, the mob had dispersed with alacrity.

Captain Waterman was not the man to submit quietly to such attacks upon his character and conduct, and he at once offered to meet any charge that might be brought against him before a proper legal tribunal. When no one appeared, he demanded that a full investigation be made into the facts of the voyage of the Challenge. It then appeared, from the testimony of a portion of the crew, that a large number of the men who had shipped in New York as able seamen were grossly incompetent and desperately mutinous; that the food had been of the best, in fact, the same quality of beef, pork, and flour that had been used in the cabin had also been served to the crew without stint, and that no more punishment had been inflicted by the officers than was necessary to maintain proper discipline for the safety of the ship and her cargo.

It also appeared that from the time the ship sailed from New York until the time of her arrival at San Francisco, Captain Waterman had never been out of his clothes except to change them, and had never slept in his berth, but had taken such rest as he could find upon the the transom in his chart-room near the companionway. He was commended for his skill and courage in bringing his vessel safely into San Francisco without the loss of a spar, sail, or piece of rigging. It is therefore humiliating to record that neither the owners of the Challenge nor their underwriters, for both of whom

title: Page:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu/242


text:
Author:Edith Helen Sichel

Works

 * The Story of Two Salons (1895)
 * The Household of the Lafayettes (1897)
 * Women and Men of the French Renaissance
 * Mr. Woodhouse's Correspondence (1903)
 * Catherine de Medici and the French Reformation (1905)
 * The Life and Letters of Alfred Ainger (1906)
 * The Later Years of Catherine de Medici (1908)
 * (ed.) Gathered Leaves from the Prose of Mary E. Coleridge (1910)
 * Michel de Montaigne (1911)
 * The Renaissance

title: Author:Edith Helen Sichel


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/314

Rh the Moro fort on 1 July, Lindsay was sent to fill his place, in which he ‘gave many strong proofs of his valour’ (, ii. 550). It is said that Pocock afterwards offered him the command of the Cambridge or one of the other ships of the line; if so, he declined it, for he was still in the Trent in December 1763. On returning to England he was knighted in reward for his gallantry. In 1764 he went out to the West Indies in the Tartar, returning in 1765. From August 1769 to March 1772 he was commodore and commander-in-chief in the East Indies, with his broad pennant in the Stag frigate. During his absence in 1771 he was nominated a knight of the Bath. In March 1778 he was appointed to the Victory, but on Admiral Keppel selecting her for his flagship he was moved to the Prince George of 90 guns, which he commanded in the engagement off Ushant 27 July. His evidence before the subsequent courts-martial was adverse to Sir Hugh Palliser [q. v.]; and on Keppel's resignation of the command [see ] Lindsay also resigned, and refused all employment under Lord Sandwich. In 1783, after the peace, he was commodore and commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean. With his broad pennant in the Trusty he was at Naples in June 1784; and on the 24th had the honour of entertaining the king and queen on board. Not long afterwards his health broke down, and he was obliged to return to England. He was promoted to be rear-admiral on 24 Sept. 1787, and died at Marlborough, on his way from Bath, on 4 June 1788, in the fifty-first year of his age. The body was brought to London and buried in Westminster Abbey.

LINDSAY, LUDOVIC, sixteenth (1600–1652?), born in 1600, was the third surviving son of Sir Henry Lindsay of Kinfauns, thirteenth earl of Crawford, by his wife, Beatrix, daughter and heiress of George Charteris of Kinfauns. He entered the service of Spain, where he attained the rank of colonel. In 1640 he raised for the Spanish service a force of three thousand infantry (Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser. 1640–1, p. 377). He succeeded to the earldom on the death, in 1639, of his brother Alexander, fifteenth earl. A sympathiser with Montrose in opposition to Argyll, he came prominently into notice in 1641 in connection with the mysterious plot for Argyll's overthrow known as the ‘Incident.’ For his supposed share in it he was, on 12 Oct., committed by special order of parliament to custody in a private house (, Annals, iii. 98); but after he had declared that he had revealed all he knew, he was set at liberty on the 26th (ib. p. 119). Subsequently he underwent re-examination, and it was not till 13 Nov. that he was liberated without caution (ib. p. 159;, Memorialls, ii. 86; see his depositions in Hist. MSS. Comm. 4th Rep., App. p. 165; also ‘Secret Account of the pretended Plot in Edinburgh against the Marquis of Hamilton and the Earl of Argyll’ in Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser. 1641–3, p. 137). There seems no adequate foundation for the belief that the Earl of Lindsay exerted himself to obtain his liberty on condition that Crawford resigned his earldom to Lindsay. On 15 Jan. 1641–2 Crawford resigned the earldom into the king's hands at Windsor, but received a re-grant of it with a new destination to himself and heirs male of his body in the first instance; failing whom to John, earl Lindsay, and heirs male of his body; failing whom to his own heirs male collateral for ever (, iii. 231).

Crawford was one of those who joined the standard of Charles at Nottingham on 25 Aug. 1642, and he was created a commander of the volunteers (, ii. 179). At the battle of Edgehill on 23 Oct. his regiment was one of the last to leave the field (ib. p. 200). Subsequently he had several important encounters with Sir William Waller. A large portion of his regiment, which he had left to hold Chichester, surrendered to Waller after eight days' siege (see True Relation, &c., concerning the Manner of the besieging and taking of Chichester, 1643), but he had a principal share in the rout of Waller on 10 July at Lansdowne. He was at the battle of Newbury, 20 Sept. 1643. On the 25th he made an attempt to capture the town of Poole through the treachery of Captain Sydenham, one of the garrison, for whose aid he promised great reward and preferment; but Sydenham's purpose was to lead him into a snare, and Crawford in the unfortunate enterprise lost more than half his forces (, Memorials, p. 75;, Hist. Collections, v. 286). Not long afterwards, along with Sir Ralph Hopton, he took Arundel Castle (, Letters and Journals, ii. 118); but being surprised by Waller at Alton, near Farnham, Crawford escaped with only a few followers, the rest being all taken, to ‘the number of nine hundred soldiers and twelve hundred arms’ (ib.) After Montrose's appointment by Charles as his lieutenant in Scotland, Crawford and other Scottish loyalists accompanied him in April 1644 in his march north-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/315

Rh wards. They were, however, deserted by the English near Annan, and after capturing Dumfries retreated southwards to Carlisle (, ii. 350). For this Lindsay was, with Montrose, excommunicated on 26 April by the general assembly (, Memoirs, p. 154). On 22 July he was found guilty of high treason (, iii. 230), and on the 25th sentence of forfaultry was passed against him (ib. p. 235), the title and dignity of Earl of Crawford being, according to the patent of 15 Jan. 1641–2, ratified to John, first earl of Lindsay [q. v.], at that time a zealous covenanter.

Crawford rejoined the royalists in England, and as lieutenant-general under Prince Rupert fought at Marston Moor 2 July 1644. After this disaster to the royal cause Crawford and other Scotch officers threw themselves into Newcastle, but on 19 Oct. the town was captured by General Leslie. Crawford was taken prisoner, was sent to Edinburgh, and was compelled to enter the town bareheaded as a traitor (, ii. 429). Chiefly through the influence of John, first earl of Lindsay and seventeenth earl of Crawford [q. v.], according to Wishart (Life of Montrose), he was condemned to death, and a deputation was sent by the general assembly to parliament to press for his immediate execution (, p. 180); but delay was deemed prudent, and he and the other prisoners who were in the Tolbooth were set at liberty by Montrose after his triumph at Kilsyth, 15 Aug. 1645. Crawford was present at the rout of Montrose at Philiphaugh by Leslie on 13 Sept., and making his escape rejoined Montrose at a ford beyond the Clyde, near Peebles, where they again separated, Montrose retreating with the foot to the highlands, and Crawford with the horse to the Mearns. Crawford afterwards rejoined Montrose in the highlands and distinguished himself in various indecisive attacks and skirmishes. In the spring of 1646 he made a raid into Buchan and burned the town of Fraserburgh, but a division of Middleton's army compelled him soon afterwards to retreat. On 3 June he wrote a letter to the king, in which he expressed his determination ‘to run the same hazard and course with the Marquis of Montrose’ (manuscripts of the Duke of Hamilton in Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. App. pt. vi. p. 110). After the king delivered himself up to the Scots at Newark, Montrose disbanded his followers (31 July). Both Crawford and Montrose were specially excepted from the articles of Westminster of 11 July, but by a special arrangement between Middleton and Montrose they were permitted to retire beyond seas. Crawford accompanied the Irish auxiliaries to Ireland, where he succeeded in obtaining a promise of three thousand men to aid in the king's rescue. On the 15th he wrote to the king from Cantyre informing him that he was on his way to Paris, and expressing his willingness to serve him (ib. p. 113). Arriving at Paris on 13 Oct., he laid his proposal before Queen Henrietta Maria; but finding that his offers were coldly received, he went to Spain, to ‘crave arrears due to him by that king’ (, p. 223). Here he obtained command of an Irish regiment; but he left Spain about 1651 in great want, and sailing from St. Malo in command of some ships he ‘took a prize or two’ (Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser. 1651–2, p. 3). In the same year he was in Paris, and during the tumults of the Fronde guarded the Cardinal de Retz in the citadel of Notre-Dame with fifty Scottish officers who had served under Montrose. He is supposed to have died in France in 1652: it is certain that he was dead in 1653. He was married to Margaret Graham, second daughter of William, earl of Strathearn, Monteith, and Airth, and widow of Alexander, lord Garlies, but left no issue, and with his death the issue male of the ‘wicked master’ became extinct.

LINDSAY, PATRICK, sixth (d. 1589), a prominent supporter of the reformers in Scotland, was the eldest son of John, fifth Baron Lindsay [q. v.] of the Byres, by Helen Stewart, daughter of John, third earl of Atholl. He is said to have been the first of the Scottish nobility who openly joined the reformers. He was one of those who, in May 1559, took up arms to prevent Perth falling into the hands of the queen-regent (, i. 339), and after the treaty at Cupar Muir had a principal share in the expulsion of the French garrison from the city (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1558–9, entry 908). On the evacuation of Edinburgh by the lords of the congregation in the following spring, he rendered


text:
Page:The Cycle Industry (1921).djvu/31

tricycle was undoubtedly introduced to combat the danger of riding the high bicycle. Riders of the early models of these machines will, however, confirm my opinion that they were far from safe, and if one did get a spill from one it was almost certain to result in a mix up with the wheel spokes and other mechanism, because one was seldom thrown clear of the machine as in the case of a fall from a bicycle.

The tricycle did, however, provide a means of cycling for those who could not manage a high bicycle and, of course, ladies were enabled to indulge in the pastime for the first time since they had ridden pillion fashion behind their squires on the old hobby horses.

The type of tricycle that first made a name in the industry was the machine invented in 1877 by the late Mr. James Starley, uncle of the Mr. J. K. Starley who subsequently made the name of Rover a household word throughout the kingdom and far beyond.

This machine was named the Coventry Lever Tricycle, and was driven by pedals and levers. It had a single driven wheel and two steering wheels, the latter being moved to and fro by a side handle like that of a spade, rods and a rack and pinion. The latter form of mechanism consists of teeth on a small wheel engaging with similar teeth on a flat strip; the small wheel or pinion is attached to the actuating rod and by turning it the rack is moved to and fro. The same mechanism is used to-day for the steering of very low-priced small motor-cars, and the movement of the wheels is thereby

title: Page:The Cycle Industry (1921).djvu/31


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/316

Rh invaluable assistance to Kirkcaldy of Grange in holding the French in check in Fife, distinguishing himself by slaying in single combat La Bastie, a French captain of repute (, ii. 11). In February 1559–60 he took part at Berwick in the negotiations for a treaty with England (ib. p. 45). On 27 April he subscribed the band to ‘defend the liberty of the Evangell of Christ’ (ib. p. 63), and he also subscribed the ‘Book of Discipline’ (ib. p. 129). He observed the obligations into which he thus entered with greater faithfulness than discretion. He was one of those deputed by the general assembly on 28 May 1561 to suppress ‘Idolatrie and all monuments thereof’ (ib. p. 163), and when Queen Mary, after her arrival from France in the following August, made known her intention of having mass said in her private chapel, he and his followers gathered in front of it, exclaiming that ‘the idolater priest should die the death’ (ib. ii. 270). Claude Nau [q. v.] asserts that he ‘drove the chaplain from the chapel and overthrew all the memorials’ (Life of Queen Mary, ed. Stevenson, p. 326), but Knox states that ‘Lord James’ (afterwards Earl of Moray) kept the door and prevented Lindsay entering the chapel (Works, ii. 270). To Lord James, who was his brother-in-law, Lindsay was specially devoted, and through his mediation Lindsay and the queen became reconciled shortly afterwards. Rough as he was in manners, Lindsay may also not have been altogether proof against the queen's personal charm. ‘It would well have contented your honour,’ writes Randolph to Cecil from St. Andrews, 25 April 1562, ‘to have seen the queen and the Master of Lindsay shoot at the butts against the Earl of Marr [afterwards Earl of Moray] and one of the ladies.’ On the rebellion of Huntly during the queen's progress in the north of Scotland in the following September, Lindsay and Kirkcaldy of Grange were, with their followers, specially summoned to her assistance (Randolph to Cecil in Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1562, entry 718); and Lindsay seems to have had a considerable share in winning the battle of Corrichie (, bk. xvi.;, ii. 275: ancient ballad on the battle).

Shortly after succeeding to the title on the death of his father, in December 1563, Lindsay had a contention with the Earl of Rothes as to his right to the sheriffdom of Fife (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1563–4, entry 1523). Rothes obtained the sheriffdom, and although on 12 Jan. 1564–5 he agreed that Lindsay should be exempted from its jurisdiction (Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 315), Lindsay was never reconciled to the loss of the office. Being related to Darnley, Lindsay, in opposition to Moray and the stricter reformers, favoured Darnley's marriage to the queen. In the ‘roundabout raid’ against Moray he ‘accompanied the king in leading the battle’ (ib. p. 379). The subsequent policy of the queen made him a zealous supporter of the plot for the murder of Rizzio, and on the night of the murder he accompanied Morton to the palace court with a band of armed followers. When Mary escaped to Dunbar Lindsay fled to England with the other contrivers of Rizzio's murder, but the queen pardoned him, Morton, and others shortly before the murder of Darnley (Bedford to Cecil, 30 Dec. 1566, in Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 872). There is no evidence that he was made aware of any scheme to ‘get rid’ of Darnley, and the presumption is that, like his kinsman Atholl, he deeply resented Darnley's murder. His resentment partly accounts for the prominent part assigned him by the queen's enemies in their proceedings against her. He signed at Stirling the bond against Bothwell, and was one of the principal actors in the strange proceedings at Carberry Hill on 15 June. He besought the lords as a special favour to permit him to accept Bothwell's challenge to single combat ‘in regard of his nearness of blood to the defunct king,’ and Morton presented him with the famous two-handed sword of Archibald Bell-the-Cat, but the queen's interference prevented the encounter (, House of Douglas, p. 297; ; ii. 561;, Memoirs, p. 184). Lindsay was largely responsible for the hard terms made with the queen. After her surrender, when she was given to understand that she was practically the prisoner of the confederate lords, she sent for Lindsay, and, giving him her hand, exclaimed, ‘By the hand which is now in yours I'll have your head for this’ (Drury to Cecil, 18 June 1567). Lindsay, along with Lord Ruthven, conveyed Mary to Lochleven, and they and the lord of the castle were jointly made her guardians. Lindsay was deputed to obtain her signature to the deed abdicating the crown. According to a catholic account, Lindsay told her ‘that if she did not sign the document she would compel them to cut her throat, however unwilling they might be’ (‘Report upon the State of Scotland by the Jesuit Priests’ in Stevenson's edition of Queen Mary, p. 60). Sir James Melville, however, states that she was informed that Lindsay was in a ‘boasting humour’ before his arrival, and that she subscribed the document without demur (Memoirs, p. 190). At the coronation of the infant prince Lindsay


text:
Page:The Cycle Industry (1921).djvu/38

the tandem form of bicycle is a most fascinating machine few will deny who have had an opportunity of riding one. Compared with the single, however, they are not popular, as for every tandem thousands of singles are to be seen on the roads, and that is caused by the increased handiness of the solo mount and the fact that the double type necessitates the partner always being ready to accompany one on rides. There is also the difficulty of storage, as a tandem bicycle is not the most convenient form of machine to stable in a house, and tandem owners usually find it essential to provide accommodation for the steed in an outhouse.

The earliest practical forms of tandem bicycle began to appear on the roads about 1893, or contemporary with the pneumatic tyre. They were, of course, introduced to permit the use of a bicycle by a lady and gentleman, and all early models were designed for the lady to occupy the front saddle. Among the firms who were pioneers of this type of machine one remembers the Humber, the Singer, the Rudge, the Raleigh, the Whitworth and the Chater Lea.

By placing the lady in front it was thought in those days that she must occupy the place of honour, and the fact that she was likely to receive the first brunt of a collision, not to speak of cold winds, was forgotten. Naturally, the mere male was entrusted with the steering and balancing, and to enable these functions to be controlled from the rear handle-bar the two sets of handles had to be connected by a rod on the off side. This

title: Page:The Cycle Industry (1921).djvu/38


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu/604

 the coatees of the lifeguards were so tight that the men were unable to perform their sword exercise, and their crested helmet, surmounted by a “sausage” ornament, was so high that the sword could not be raised for a downward blow. The total height of the lancer cap with its plume (Plate I., line 3, No. 1) was about an arm’s length, and prints exist showing British lancers in a cap of which the square top is very nearly as broad as the wearer’s shoulders. The hussar furred pelisse, originally worn over a jacket (Plate I., line 1, fig. 4), and so worn by the Austrians to-day, had become a magnificently embroidered and laced garment, always slung and never worn, and the old plain under-jacket had been loaded with buttons and lace, and differed from the pelisse only in the absence of fur. It was the Restoration era, too, that delighted to decorate uniforms with sewn-down imitations of the skirt pockets, turn-back cuffs, &c., of the old coat. This was, in short, the epoch of pure dandyism, and although some of its wilder extravagances were abolished between 1830 and 1850, enough still remained when the British army took the field in the Crimea to bring about a sudden and violent reaction, in which the slovenliest dress was accounted the best. The dress regulations of 1855 introduced the low “Albert” shako and the tunic, abolished the epaulette—an ornament which had grown in the 18th century out of a shoulder cord that kept the belts in place and was decorated at the outer end with a few loose strands or tassels of embroidery—and made other changes which, without bringing back uniform to its original roominess and comfort, destroyed not only the dandyism of George IV.’s time, but also the chastened finery of the Early Victorian uniforms (Plate I., line 3, No. 7).

The tunic, accompanied by a spiked helmet of burgonet shape, had been introduced in Prussia and Russia about 1835. Russia was too poor to allow extravagance in dress, and Russians, clothed as they generally were in their great coats, had little incentive to aim at futile splendour. Both countries, however, and France and Austria likewise, passed through a period of tight, if unadorned, uniforms, before Algeria, Italy, and similar experiences brought about the abandonment of the swallow-tailed coatee. The French adopted the tunic in 1853, the Austrians in 1856, and in both countries the shako became smaller and lighter. From about 1880, when the spiked helmet replaced the low shako in England, no radical changes were made in full dress uniforms, except that the Russian army, abandoning the German pattern uniforms formerly in vogue, adopted a national uniform which is simple, roomy, and exceedingly plain, even in full dress. In 1906–1909, however, this attempt to combine handsomeness and comfort was given up, full dresses being made more decorative, and light green-grey service dresses being introduced. Lastly, since the South African War and the development of infantry fire, the attempt to wear full dress uniform on active service has been practically given up. Great Britain first of all adopted the Indian khaki, and then a drab mixture for “service dress” and returned, after 150 years, to the civilian style of field dress, adopting the “Norfolk jacket” or shooting coat with spinal pleat and roomy pockets. Germany, Italy, the United States and other countries have followed suit, though each has chosen its own shade, and the shades vary from light grey blue in Italy to deep olive drab in the United States. The details of the present-day uniforms in the principal states are given below. It might be stated, as a summary of modern uniforms, that Great Britain has most completely divorced service and full dress, and that in consequence her full dress is handsomer and her service dress plainer than those of any other country. Whether, for European war at any rate, the obliteration of regimental distinctions has not been carried too far, is open to question. The method adopted for the Italian infantry would seem to give enough means of identification, without increasing visibility, and as this method was used by the British in the South African War, it will probably be revived in future wars.

The full dress uniforms of the British service in 1910 had not undergone any radical change since the army reorganization of 1881. Many regiments had, however, resumed their original facings instead of the White common to all non-royal English regiments in the last twenty years of the 19th century. But the Scottish regiments maintained their yellow or yellow-buff facings, and the single Irish regiment which is not “royal” (the Connaught Rangers) its green. Rifle regiments had astrakhan busbies, resembling in shape enlarged “glengarry” caps, with plume and lines. Details in all corps have been changed, rendering the uniforms more handsome. In September 1910 it was announced that the cloth helmet would be replaced by a shako. Cavalry.—Household cavalry and dragoons wear single-breasted tunics with gold buttons, cuffs pointed with Austrian knot collars and shoulder-straps of the facings colour and white piping on the front and the skirt-flaps. The household cavalry wear steel cuirasses in review order, and in undress tight-fitting jackets and blue red-striped overalls. All wear steel or brass helmets, with drooping horsehair plumes, except the Scots Greys (2nd Dragoons). who have a grenadier bearskin with feather plume. All wear blue pantaloons and jack boots, except the household cavalry, who in full dress wear white leather breeches and high jack boots reaching above the knee. The stripes on the pantaloons are yellow, (white in 2nd and 6th Dragoon Guards), white belts and slings. See Plate II., line 1, figs. 4 and 9.

Lancers (Plate II. line 1. No. 2) wear double-breasted tunics with gold buttons, and the front or “plastron,” the peculiar mark of the lancer, varies in colour with the facings of the regiment. Lancers wear lancer caps (the Polish czapka) with drooping plumes. Pantaloons are blue. with yellow stripes (white in 17th), boots as in the dragoons. Round the waist is a girdle of yellow and red, and the cap is secured to the collar of the tunic by yellow lines.

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu/604


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/317

Rh and Ruthven testified that the resignation was voluntary; but Lindsay found it necessary to compel the keeper of the privy seal to attach it to the resignation (for the document see Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 531–4). Subsequently Lindsay was one of the staunchest supporters of the Regent Moray. In a forged ‘Conference about the Regent Moray’ he is represented as saying: ‘My lord, ye know of ould that I was moir rude than wyse. I can nought gyve you a verie wyse counsell, but I love you weill aneuche’ (Bannatyne Miscellany, i. 38;, ii. 516).

After Mary's escape from Lochleven Lindsay appeared against her at Langside, and by reinforcing the right wing of the regent as it was about to give way turned the tide of battle against her (, Memoirs, p. 202; Hist. of James the Sext, p. 26;, ii. 364). He was one of the four commissioners appointed to accompany the regent, in August 1568, to those conferences regarding the queen at York which were subsequently adjourned to Westminster. At Westminster on 1 Dec. Lord Herries asserted that the real contrivers of Darnley's murder were the regent and his colleagues, and Lindsay challenged him to maintain this statement by single combat; but Herries, in reply, specially excepted Lindsay from the accusation (see documents printed in Appendix to Hist. of Scotland). He assisted in carrying the corpse of the Regent Moray at his funeral (Randolph to Cecil, 22 Feb. 1569–70, printed in Works, vi. 571). Subsequently he contrived to support the king's party, rendering invaluable service during the period of internecine strife. On 16 June 1571 the forces under him and Morton slew Gavin Hamilton, commendator of Kilwinning, and took Lord Home and others prisoners (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 224;, iii. 101). On the last day of the same month he also intercepted at Wemyss a quantity of gold sent by order of Queen Mary, for the defenders of the castle, from her dowry out of France (ib. iii. 105). Shortly afterwards he was taken prisoner, but on 12 July he purchased his liberty (ib. p. 113). A few months later a party of horsemen from Edinburgh went to his estate of the Byres and seized a large number of his cattle (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 241;, Memorials, p. 179), but on the following day Lindsay, in a victorious skirmish with the enemy in the High Street of Edinburgh, took Lord Seton prisoner (ib. p. 180). During the absence of the regent at the parliament at Stirling Lindsay on 23 Aug. was chosen lieutenant in Leith. Here on the last day of August a powerful attack was made upon him, but he beat it off and drove the enemy ‘in again at the ports’ (ib. p. 138). The king's party in 1572 elected him provost of Edinburgh, while the siege of the castle was in progress. Knox, whom he visited on his deathbed, advised him to have no dealings with the damnable house of the castle (, iii. 235). This advice Lindsay followed with strict faithfulness until the conclusion of the siege; but after its surrender he made strenuous efforts to induce Morton to spare the life of his old companion-in-arms, Kirkcaldy of Grange.

During the remainder of Morton's regency Lindsay played a less conspicuous part, partly because opportunities did not arise for utilising his talents as a man of action. But he probably was no keen supporter of Morton. At any rate, in March 1577–8, he combined with other noblemen to effect Morton's overthrow. It was to him and Ruthven that the castle of Edinburgh was surrendered on 1 April 1578, and he was chosen one of the council in whom the administration of affairs was vested till the meeting of parliament. When Morton, after regaining possession of the king and the castle of Stirling, summoned a convention to be held there, Lindsay and Montrose, as deputies of the discontented nobles, protested that a convention held in an armed fortress could not be regarded as a free parliament (Hist. of James the Sext, p. 167;, iii. 413; , Memoirs, p. 6). They were thereupon committed to ward in their lodgings in Stirling Castle (Reg. P. C. Scotl. iii. 8), but either Lindsay departed without a license (, iii. 417), or else his ward was extended to the ‘bounds of Fife’ (, Memoirs, p. 13). In any case, he and Montrose joined the dissentient lords, who, with about seven thousand followers, marched in arms towards Stirling. A compromise, by which Morton was permitted nominally to return to power, was effected, and Lindsay became a member of the new privy council. On 1 Dec. 1579 he was appointed a commissioner for the ‘reformation of the university of St. Andrews’ (Reg. P. C. Scotl. iii. 243). He loyally adhered to Morton till the latter's fall in 1580, when he retired to his own house much discontented. He was concerned in the Ruthven raid in 1582, and after the king's rescue at St. Andrews fled with other raiders to England. On his return he took part in the Gowrie conspiracy in 1584, and was committed to Tantallon Castle, but on the fall of Arran in November obtained his release. He died on 11 Dec. 1589.

By his wife Euphemia, eldest daughter of Sir Robert Douglas of Lochleven, and sister


text:
Page:The Cycle Industry (1921).djvu/65

Rh also bolted to the U rims by T-shaped bolts moulded in the rubber, with the tail of the T passed through the rim, being nutted underneath the rim. The average size of solid india-rubber tyres was ¾ in., but sizes from ½ in., for racing machines, to 1¼ in. for roadsters were used. The larger sizes were, however, too heavy.

The first attempt to provide more comfortable tyres for cyclists was by the introduction of the cushion tyre. This was a hollow rubber tyre varying from 1¼ to 1½ ins. diameter, the hole through the centre varying from about ⅜ in. to ¾ in. If the hole was small the tyre was heavy and the machine ran "dead"; if large, the sides pressed hard against the edges of the rim and cut through. Some cushion tyres were more like a glorified thick garden hose, and various shaped rims were introduced to obviate the tendency there was to cut through at the sides. The expense of india-rubber resulted in great

title: Page:The Cycle Industry (1921).djvu/65