text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/388

Maitland of the queen's party. He undertook his overwhelming responsibilities with health hopelessly broken. Already, on 1 March 1570, Randolph wrote that he had now 'only his heart whole and stomach good,' his legs being 'clean gone, his body weak' (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1569-71, entry 723). On 1 April 1571 he joined Kirkcaldy in Edinburgh Castle, being conveyed to it from Leith 'by six workmen with sting and ling, and Mr. Robert Maitland holding up his head' (, Memorials, p. 110). On 14 May he was forfeited by the regent's parliament on the ground of his 'foreknowledge and consent of the murder of the late king. It soon became evident that he was engaged in an unequal struggle; the hope of securing even the neutrality of England: disappeared; France remained lukewarm; and the supporters of Mary outside the castle walls gradually fell away and made terms with the enemy. But Maitland continued to hope against hope; and faith in his ability to weather the storm in some way or other nerved the garrison to maintain to the last their heroic defence. Knox on his deathbed sent a message warning him and Kirkcaldy of the fate that would befall them if they would not 'leave that evil cause and give over the castle;' but Knox's assumption of special familiarity with the purposes of the Most High only moved Maitland's mirth, and he bade the messenger 'to go tell Mr. Knox he is but a drytting prophet.' Learning of Morton's illness in November 1572, and deeming it mortal like his own, he sent his cousin, the Laird of Carmichael, to remind him of their old friendship and of the many benefits he had secured for him 'out of kindness only and not for his gear' (ib. p. 339). This message probably led Morton to begin negotiations with Maitland and Kirkcaldy through Sir James Melville, but the negotiations were broken off on their refusal to agree to the sacrifice of the Hamiltons and Gordons (, Memoirs, p. 260). The refusal sealed their fate; Morton for his own safety deemed it necessary to sacrifice one or other section of the Marian party.

When the guns of the castle began to fire on the besiegers, Maitland had to be carried down to the vaults below St. David's Chapel, his frame being so feeble that 'he could not abide the shot.' The assault with English cannon commenced on 21 May 1573, and after the storming of the spur on the 26th the defenders endeavoured to make terms for a surrender, but while willing to grant their lives to the garrison, Morton declared that the leaders, including Maitland and Kirkcaldy, must surrender unconditionally. These terms they refused, but on the 29th they gave themselves up to Drury, the English commander, hoping that the intervention of Elizabeth might avail to save their lives. Had they stood out longer, the garrison, it is said, would have 'hanged Lethington over the castle walls' (Remembrances, Cal. S. P. For. Ser. 1572-4, entry 1047). The expedient of delivering themselves to the English availed them nothing, Maitland only escaping the ignominy of execution by dying in prison at Leith on 9 June 1573. The current belief, according to Sir James Melville, was that 'he took a drink and died, as the old Romans were wont to do' (Memoirs, p. 266), and Killigrew states that 'he died not without suspicion of poison;' but there is no evidence to support these suspicions, for he had been dying by inches long before the surrender of the castle. On 18 June Drury wrote that he had pressed the regent in vain that Maitland's body might be buried (Cal. S. P. For. Ser. 1572-4, entry 1044), and Calderwood states that so long did it remain without burial that the vermin from it came 'creeping out under the door of the house' (History, iii. 285). When or where he was buried is not mentioned.

Buchanan's caustic portrait of Maitland in 'The Chamsaleon,' though a mere caricature, was superficially so clever and true that it was generally accepted, by catholics and protestants alike, as a complete and accurate likeness. The reason was that Maitland cared comparatively little either for protestantism or Catholicism, and was actuated in his political conduct by considerations which neither party could appreciate. Thus each regarded him as a traitor. Probably he himself considered the betrayal of protestantism or Catholicism of comparatively small moment, provided that he saved the interests of his country; and as a matter of fact his patriotism was only the more staunch and pure that it was unhampered by ecclesiastical restraints. The wisdom of his statesmanship is another matter, and at least it may be said that he excelled more as diplomatist than statesman. His aims were apt to be chimerical, and his marvellous adroitness in diplomacy tempted him to believe in the accomplishment of impossibilities.

Notwithstanding his unerring insight into the motives of those with whom he came in contact—indicated especially in the skilful method with which in his correspondence he played on their special weaknesses—he failed properly to understand the drift of the current tendencies of his time. His failure


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/376

Rh of Charles Manners Sutton to the speakership (ib. xxxvi. 846–8). He supported Sir James Mackintosh's motion for a select committee on the criminal laws on 2 March 1819, and was subsequently appointed a member of the committee (ib. xxxix. 826–7, 845). On 22 April 1825 Littleton, who had always been in favour of Roman catholic emancipation, introduced his Elective Franchise in Ireland Bill, which was read a second time on 26 April following by 233 to 185 votes (ib. 2nd ser. xiii. 126–32, 176–247), but was subsequently abandoned upon the rejection of the Relief Bill (ib. pp. 902–3). Littleton's bill and the Roman Catholic Clergy Support Bill, introduced by Lord Francis Leveson-Gower, were known as ‘the wings’ of Burdett's Roman Catholic Relief Bill. In 1828 he became a convert to the principles of parliamentary reform, and in 1831 was appointed, with Captain Beaufort, R.N., and Lieutenant T. Drummond, R.E., to superintend and report upon the inquiries of the boundary commissioners (Parl. Papers, 1831–2, vol. xxxvi.) Owing to Littleton's persistence an act was passed in 1831 prohibiting the truck system in various trades (1 & 2 Will. IV, cap. 37). At the general election in December 1832 Littleton was returned to the first reformed parliament as one of the members for South Staffordshire. Annoyed at the decision of the cabinet in favour of Manners Sutton's continuance in office, the radicals nominated Littleton as a candidate for the speakership. He was proposed by Joseph Hume and seconded by O'Connell. Littleton, however, declared himself to be an ‘unwilling candidate,’ and the motion was lost by 241 to 31 votes (Parl. Debates, 3rd ser. xv. 51–76). In May 1833 Littleton accepted the office of chief secretary to the lord-lieutenant of Ireland (the Marquis Wellesley), and was re-elected in the following month for South Staffordshire after ‘a short but not inexpensive contest’ with Lord Ingestre, whom he defeated by a majority of 433 votes. He was sworn a member of the privy council on 12 June 1833. At his suggestion the ministry asked parliament to advance 1,000,000l. to the Irish tithe-owners on the security of the arrears. Having carried a resolution to that effect in the House of Commons on 5 Aug. 1833, Littleton introduced the Irish Tithe Arrears Bill, which was quickly passed through both houses (3 & 4 Will. IV, cap. 100).

On 13 Feb. 1834 Littleton, taken by surprise, consented to support O'Connell's motion for a select committee to inquire into the conduct of Baron Smith. Though opposed by Graham and Spring Rice, the motion was carried by a large majority (ib. 3rd ser. xxi. 272–352), but the debate seriously damaged the government, and eight days afterwards Sir Edward Knatchbull's motion to reverse the vote was carried (ib. pp. 695–754). On 20 Feb. Littleton carried his resolution for the commutation of the existing composition for tithes in Ireland into a land tax payable to the state (ib. pp. 572–591). He opposed O'Connell's motion for the repeal of the union in a speech of considerable length on 24 April, and asserted that, since the passing of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill, O'Connell ‘had proved a most unfortunate obstacle to the social happiness of Ireland and her progressive improvement’ (ib. xxii. 1352–61). When he moved the second reading of his Tithe Bill on 2 May, O'Connell declared that such was his opinion of it ‘that he would take the sense of the house upon every question referring to it put by the chair’ (ib. xxiii. 425–6, 471); it was read, however, a second time on 6 June by a majority of 196 (ib. p. 678). The many changes which were made in the Tithe Bill in order to propitiate O'Connell led to Stanley's charge against Littleton of ‘thimbleshifting’ (ib. xxiv. 1154, 1206). In view of the vexed question of ‘appropriation’ the cabinet, at Littleton's suggestion, agreed to the appointment of a commission to ascertain ‘the state of religious and other instruction’ in Ireland, leaving it to him to prescribe the duties of the commission and to select the commissioners (Memoir, p. 8; Parl. Papers, 1835, vols. xxxiii. xxxiv.). Meantime it had become necessary to consider the question of renewing the Coercion Act of the previous year. Littleton had been desired by Wellesley to consult Brougham. They agreed that in order to smooth the course for the Tithe Bill ‘the meeting clauses’ should be omitted from the new Coercion Bill, and both wrote in this sense to Wellesley (Memoir, pp. 10–12). Wellesley, though he had hitherto advised the government to the contrary, wrote on 21 June to Lord Grey recommending the omission of the objectionable clauses (ib. pp. 33–7). On the 23rd Littleton, with Lord Althorp's concurrence, had an interview with O'Connell, whom he cautioned ‘against any unnecessary excitation of the people of Ireland until he should have seen the new Coercion Bill, which would be renewed, but with certain limitations’ (ib. p. 14), and indiscreetly admitted that ‘Althorp's sentiments upon the proposed modifications for the Coercion Bill corresponded with’ his own (ib. p. 57). The account which Brougham (Memoirs of his Life and Times, 1871, iii. 391–401) gives of

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


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/377

Rh these transactions is both misleading and inaccurate. He ignores the fact that the proposal to induce Wellesley to consent to the omission of the meeting clauses originated with himself, and his statement that ‘the letter which Littleton had written to Lord Wellesley, and which produced Lord Wellesley's letter to Grey of 21 June, was concocted, as Grey entirely believed, by Edward Ellice,’ is inconsistent with the true state of the case. Misled by Littleton's assurances O'Connell urged his friends to support the whig candidate for the vacancy at Wexford. Grey had, however, written to Wellesley ‘a strong representation.’ Though Wellesley in his reply to Grey maintained the position taken in his letter of the 21st, he assured Littleton that he should ‘certainly be satisfied with whatever course the cabinet chooses to adopt’ (Memoir, p. 43). A meeting of the cabinet (of which Littleton was not a member) was held on the 29th, when Wellesley's two letters were read, and Grey having ‘declared that nothing should shake his resolve not to propose any renewal which did not embrace the provisions respecting meetings, his colleagues yielded the point’ (ib. p. 44). On hearing the result of the cabinet council Littleton communicated to O'Connell the failure of his expectations, and on 1 July the Coercion Bill was introduced by Lord Grey, who quoted a letter from Lord Wellesley of 18 April, expressing ‘his most anxious desire that the act might be renewed,’ but made no reference to the letter of 21 June (ib. p. 15; Parl. Debates, 3rd ser. xxiv. 1011–26). Enraged at the apparent duplicity of the government, O'Connell, breaking the promise of secrecy which he had given, on 3 July disclosed in the House of Commons his conversation with Littleton, who admitted in his reply that he had ‘committed a gross indiscretion,’ but denied any intention of deceiving O'Connell (ib. pp. 1099–1116). On the following day, during the debate on the second reading of the Coercion Bill, Lord Grey in the House of Lords disavowed any knowledge of the communication with O'Connell, and allowed it to be understood that the question was settled when Littleton had represented it to be unsettled (ib. pp. 1127–30). In consequence of this misunderstanding Littleton on 5 July sent in his resignation to Lord Grey, who refused to accept it (Memoir, pp. 61–4), and on the 7th Althorp, at Littleton's request, stated in the House of Commons that Littleton had good grounds for informing O'Connell that the clauses were still under consideration (Parl. Debates, 3rd ser. xxiv. 1222–3). A motion having been threatened for the production of the private correspondence between the members of the English and Irish governments, Althorp determined to resign, and Grey, seizing the opportunity, announced his own resignation on 9 July (ib. pp. 1305–19). Having learnt from Lord Ebrington that there was a general feeling among Grey's friends that he ought to retire, Littleton on 16 July, after acknowledging that he had been ‘the main cause of Lord Grey's retirement,’ placed his resignation in Lord Melbourne's hands (Memoir, p. 99). Althorp, who had withdrawn his resignation, however, declared that as they were both in the same position, it was impossible for him to continue in the government unless Littleton continued also (ib. pp. 24, 101–3). Littleton thereupon consented to remain in office, and on 18 July supported the introduction of the new Coercion Bill, from which the court-martial and the meeting clauses were omitted (Parl. Debates, 3rd ser. xxv. 160–9). His Tithe Bill passed through the commons, but was thrown out by the House of Lords on the second reading (ib. p. 1204). He resigned office with the rest of his colleagues upon Lord Melbourne's dismissal in November 1834. At the general election in January 1835 he was again returned for South Staffordshire, but his hopes of the speakership were dispelled by the selection of Abercromby as the whig candidate (, Life of Lord Melbourne, 1878, ii. 82). He was created Baron Hatherton of Hatherton on 11 May 1835, and took his seat in the House of Lords on 1 June following (Journals of the House of Lords, lxvii. 171). In his maiden speech there on the following day he gave rise to a short but excited discussion by applying the phrase ‘sectarian’ to the established church in Ireland (Parl. Debates, 3rd ser. xxviii. 355–8). Hatherton never received any other political office. He voted for the repeal of the corn laws in 1846, and was appointed lord-lieutenant of Staffordshire on 8 June 1854. He spoke for the last time in the House of Lords on 23 May 1862 (ib. clxvi. 2091). He died on 4 May 1863, aged 72, at Teddesley, near Penkridge, Staffordshire, and was buried in Penkridge Church on the 12th.

Hatherton was a man of moderate abilities and unimpeachable character. He began his political career as a member of the independent country party and ended it as a whig. He gained a certain reputation in the House of Commons as an authority on matters of parliamentary procedure. Greville, who seems to have cherished a special contempt for him, erroneously asserts that he ‘volunteered his services’ to Lord Grey as chief secretary for


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/378

Rh Ireland (Memoirs, 1st ser. iii. 102). The appointment was made by Lord Grey upon the advice of Lord John Russell, who confessed afterwards that he had made a mistake (ib. ii. 372 n.) His want of tact unfitted him for such a post, but though he seems to have distrusted his own ability, he is reported to have said, when warned against O'Connell, ‘Oh! leave me to manage Dan’ (ib. iii. 103).

He married first, on 21 Dec. 1812, Hyacinthe Mary, natural daughter of Richard, marquis Wellesley, by whom he had one son, Edward Richard, who succeeded as second baron Hatherton, and three daughters. His first wife died on 4 Jan. 1849, and on 11 Feb. 1852 he married secondly Caroline Anne, widow of Edward Davies Davenport of Capesthorne, Macclesfield, and daughter of Richard Hurt of Wirksworth, Derbyshire, by whom he had no issue. There is an engraving of Hatherton by Lewis after Slater, and one of his first wife by Turner after Sir Thomas Lawrence. Two portraits of Hatherton, painted by Pickersgill and Lauder respectively, and a miniature by Cosway, are in the possession of the present Lord Hatherton, who also possesses his grandfather's manuscript journal, extending from 1817 to 1863.

LITTLETON, HENRY (1823–1888), music publisher, a direct descendant of the Littletons who settled in Cornwall in the fourteenth century, was the son of James and Elizabeth Littleton, and was born in London on 7 Jan. 1823. In 1841 he entered the music-publishing house of Novello in a subordinate position, in 1846 became manager, in 1861 a partner, and in 1866 sole proprietor. He had great business capacity, and many of the transactions which gained the firm a name for enterprise were due to him. The development of the English taste for choral music during the last forty years may be said to have been created by the cheap publications of the house of Novello, the idea of which, though due to J. Alfred Novello, was entirely carried out by the energy of Littleton. He brought forward many well-known composers, and in some cases bore the cost of their education. It was partly on his invitation that Liszt came to England, after an absence of nearly fifty years, in 1886, when Liszt was his guest at Westwood House, Sydenham (Musical Times, May 1886). When he retired in 1887, Littleton left the largest business of the kind in the world. He died 11 May 1888, and was buried at Lee, Kent. His portrait is published in ‘A Short History of Cheap Music,’ 1887, in which his business career is sketched.

LITTLETON, JAMES (d. 1723), vice-admiral, grand-nephew of Sir Thomas Littleton, bart. (d. 1710) [q. v.], speaker of the House of Commons and treasurer of the navy, was first lieutenant of the Dreadnought in the battle of La Hogue, May 1692. On 27 Feb. 1692–3 he was promoted to be captain of the Swift prize of 24 guns. In 1695 he commanded the Portland of 48 guns in the Channel, and in 1696 on the Newfoundland station, whence he went with the yearly convoy to Cadiz and the Mediterranean, returning to England in May 1697. For the rest of 1697 and through 1698 the Portland was employed on the home station. In 1699 Littleton went out to the East Indies in the Anglesea, one of a small squadron under Commodore George Warren, which had been ordered to act against the pirates of Madagascar. Warren died in November, and the command devolved on Littleton. Several of the piratical vessels were destroyed, and proclamations of pardon having broken up their nests for the time, each man being suspicious of his fellow, Littleton returned to England. From 1702 to 1705 he commanded the Medway in the Channel, and in January 1704–5 was commodore of a small squadron which captured the Auguste, a large French privateer, when her consort, the Jason, commanded by the celebrated Duguay-Trouin, escaped with difficulty (cf., p. 775; , Studies in Naval History, p. 320). In 1706 he commanded the Cambridge under Sir John Leake [q. v.] at the relief of Barcelona and the capture of Alicante, where he is said to have been landed in command of a battalion of seamen.

In 1709 he was captain of the Somerset in the West Indies; and in July 1710 was appointed commodore and commander-in-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/62

MacDonnell commanded to return to Ireland to assist in bringing about a cessation of hostilities, he was immediately on his landing near Newcastle, in co. Down,in May 1643, again taken prisoner by Monro and confined in Carrickfergus Castle. Certain letters relating to the cessation which were discovered on his person were sent by Monro to the privy council of Scotland and the commissioners for Irish affairs in England, with comments suggesting a terrible conspiracy against the peace of Scotland and the Scottish forces in Ireland, and by them were immediately published (see particularly A Declaration of the Commons assembled in Parliament concerning the Rise and Progress of the Grand Rebellion in Ireland, London, 25 July 1643). However, with the assistance of Captain George Gordon, who had quite recently married his sister Rose, he again, after about eight months' imprisonment, managed to escape (, Hist. of the Troubles in Scotland, p. 858) to Charlemont, where he was well received by Owen Roe O'Neill [q. v.], and thence to Kilkenny. But being desired by the supreme council of the confederates to take the oath of association and some command in their army, he for the present declined, hoping, apparently, to get himself chosen lieutenant-general of all the catholic forces in the kingdom ; and continuing his journey, arrived at Oxford on 16 Dec. 1643. Here he magnified his influence with the confederates, boasting of his ability to raise ten thousand men for service in England, with the object of increasing his importance in Ireland. But his offer to transport two thousand men to co-operate with Montrose in Scotland was gladly accepted by that nobleman. The king, who at first was doubtful as to the policy of the scheme, and also as to Antrim's ability to fulfil his promise, finally, and after having, at the earnest solicitation of the duchess, agreed to make him a marquis, consented to give it a trial.

Accordingly, having received instructions to persuade the confederates to send ten thousand men to England, or, if their terms for religious liberty were too high, to get two thousand men for Scotland (Clarendon State Papers, ii. 165), Antrim left Oxford about 21 Jan. 1644 'in company with Daniel O'Neill [q. v.], who, being agreeable to him, was thought the properest person to keep him steady in his resolution and prevent him falling into follies and extravagances in the management of the affair' (, Ormonde, i. 479; cf. also, Rebellion, ii. 798-812). He arrived at Kilkenny on 23 Feb., and at once appealed to the supreme council for their assistance in carrying out his scheme. In order to increase his influence he, with the verbal permission of the king, took the oath of association, was sworn a member of the council, and received a commission as lieutenant-general of all the catholic forces. But finding there was no prospect of realising his extravagant hopes in regard to the ten thousand men to be sent into England, he laid down his commission and busied himself in raising the soldiers intended for Scotland ( in Desid. Curiosa Hibernica, ii. 249-51) ; and with the assistance of the Marquis of Ormonde was so far successful that about the end of June 1644 he sent over about sixteen hundred men fully equipped, under the command of Alaster MacColl MacDonnell, to the assistance of the Marquis of Montrose. Having done this, he shortly afterwards returned to Oxford, and in the beginning of 1645 was sent by the king with letters to the queen at St. Germains in France. From France he proceeded to Flanders, where, with Spanish assistance, he obtained two frigates and a considerable quantity of arms and ammunition, which he intended to use in transporting fresh supplies from Ireland into Scotland. He declined the company of the papal nuncio, Rinuccini, and coming to Falmouth, he offered his assistance to the Prince of Wales, who distributed his arms and ammunition among the troops and garrisons in Cornwall, and shortly afterwards made use of one of the frigates to escape to Jersey (, Life, ii. 247).

After first visiting Cork, Antrim proceeded to Scotland, where he arrived in July 1646. Within ten days after his arrival he was expressly ordered by the king to lay down arms. But it was not until the command had been more than once repeated that he reluctantly, towards the close of the year, withdrew from Cantire, which he had hoped to recover by force from Argyll. Argyll had expelled the MacDonnells in 1607. On bis return to Ireland he occupied himself in making preparations to renew the struggle in Scotland at the earliest opportunity, and 'laboured,' according to his own account, to effect a peace between the Ormondists and extreme catholics on terms of obtaining religious equality for the latter. About the close of 1647 the confederates, having resolved to come to terms with the crown, appointed Antrim, Lord Muskerry, and Geoffrey Browne to proceed to France, in order to negotiate a peace, and if possible to persuade the Prince of Wales to take the government of Ireland on himself. But Antrim, who inclined to the nuncio's party,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/379

Rh chief of the squadron going to Jamaica, with his broad pennant in the Defence. He arrived there in November, and in the following July put to sea on intelligence of a Spanish fleet of twelve large ships being assembled at Cartagena. He came on the coast of New Spain with five two-decked ships on the 26th, and drove five large vessels in under the guns of the castle of Boca-Chica, the entrance to the harbour of Cartagena. On the next day, 27 July, four others were sighted and chased. About 6 the headmost ships, Salisbury and Salisbury prize, came up with the rearmost, which, after a sharp combat, struck on the approach of the Defence. The Jersey captured another; the other two escaped [see ; ]. Afterwards, Littleton, with his squadron, cruised off Havana, in order to intercept Du Casse, who was expected there with his squadron; but having received intelligence, given on oath before the governor of Jamaica, that a fleet of eighteen ships of war, with many transports and a large body of troops, had arrived at Martinique, destined, it was supposed, for an attack on Jamaica, Littleton drew back to cover that island. The intelligence proved to be false; but Du Casse, taking advantage of his absence, got into Havana. In July 1712 Littleton was relieved by Sir Hovenden Walker and returned to England. In November 1715 he was appointed resident commissioner and commander-in-chief at Chatham. On 1 Feb. 1715–16 he was promoted to be rear-admiral of the red; and on 15 March 1716–17 to be vice-admiral of the blue. In the spring of 1719 he was for a few weeks first captain to the Earl of Berkeley, first lord of the admiralty, specially authorised to fly the flag of lord high admiral [see, third ]. He was elected M.P. for Queensborough on 24 March 1721–2, and died 3 Feb. 1722–3 (Hist. Reg. 1723; Chron. Diary, p. 10).

LITTLETON, THOMAS (1422–1481), judge and legal author, born at Frankley House, Frankley, Worcestershire, in 1422, was eldest son of Thomas Westcote of Westcote, near Barnstaple, whom Coke calls ‘the king's servant in court.’ His mother was Elizabeth, daughter and sole heir of Thomas de Littleton, lord of the manor of Frankley, and esquire of the body to Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V. As heir to his mother, whose estates were more considerable than his father's, he was baptised in her name, though the rest of the family retained that of Westcote.

He was a member of the Inner Temple, where he gave a reading, still extant (Harl. MS. 1691, ff. 188 et seq.), on the Statute of Westminster II., ‘De Donis Conditionalibus.’ He was in practice as a pleader in 1445, was escheator of Worcestershire about the same time, and served the office of sheriff of that county in 1447.

Littleton was also recorder of Coventry in 1450, when, as representing the mayor and corporation of that city, he presented Henry VI, on his visit to the city, 21 Sept., with a tun of wine and twenty fat oxen, for which, and for his ‘good rule of the citizens,’ he received the royal thanks.

In 1451 he had from Sir William Trussel a grant of the manor of Sheriff Hales, Staffordshire, for life, ‘pro bono et notabili consilio’ given by him, and on 2 July 1453 he was called to the degree of serjeant-at-law.

Littleton was apparently more or less involved in the troubled politics of the period, for in 1454 he obtained from the protector, Richard of York, a general pardon under the great seal. In 1455 he was appointed (13 May) king's serjeant, rode the northern circuit as justice of assize, and was placed on a commission under the privy seal for raising funds for the defence of Calais. In the following year he was one of the commissioners of array for Warwickshire. Littleton was also appointed, before the demise of Henry VI, steward of the Marshalsea court, and justice of the county palatine of Lancaster. On the accession of Edward IV he again obtained a general pardon under the great seal, and was at once placed on a parliamentary commission to adjust some disputes between the Bishop of Winchester and his tenants. He was soon in high favour with the new king, whom he attended on his Gloucestershire progress in 1463–4, and by whom he was raised to the bench as justice of the common pleas on 27 April 1466. His salary was fixed, de gratia speciali, at 110 marks a year, with an allowance of 106s. 11⅓d. for a furred robe at Christmas and 66s. 6d. for a linen robe at Pentecost. He continued on the northern circuit, was a trier of petitions from Gascony in the parliaments of 1467 and 1472, was created a knight of the Bath on the admission of the Prince of Wales to the order, 18 April 1475, and died at Frankley on 23 Aug. 1481. He was interred in the nave of Worcester Cathedral—south side—under an altar-tomb of marble, erected by himself, upon which was his effigy in brass a scroll with the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/380

Rh legend ‘Fili Dei, miserere mei’ issuing from his mouth. The brass was removed during the civil wars. A figure of Littleton kneeling, in coif and scarlet robes, long adorned the east window of the chancel of the chapel of St. Leonard, Frankley, and there was also a portrait of him in one of the windows of Halesowen Church. No trace of either now remains. An engraving by Robert Vaughan, from a sketch of the figure in the Frankley window, was prefixed to the second (1629) edition of Coke's ‘Institutes,’ pt. i. The full-length portrait of Littleton by Cornelius Janssen in the Inner Temple Hall was probably studied from both windows with the help of the effigy on the tomb, and may therefore be regarded as fairly authentic.

Littleton's will, dated the day before his death, affords an interesting glimpse of the contents of his library. After disposing of his ‘gode litel massbook and gode vestment with the apparyl to an auter’ ‘to the use’ of Trinity Chapel, Frankley, and his ‘great antiphoner’ ‘to the use’ of St. Leonard's chapel, Frankley, he bequeathed the ‘Catholicon’ (i.e. the English-Latin dictionary known as ‘Catholicon Anglicum,’ printed by the Camden Society in 1882), the ‘Constitutions Provincial’ (i.e. Lyndewode's ‘Constitutiones Provinciales Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ,’ printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1490), the ‘De Gestis Romanorum’ (the well-known ‘Gesta Romanorum’) and some other treatises to Halesowen monastery, the ‘Fasiculus (sic) Morum’ (perhaps a copy of the Latin original of Jacques Le Grant's ‘Livres des Bonnes Mœurs,’ Paris, 1478, fol., of which ‘The Boke of Good Maners’ published by Caxton in 1487, fol., is a translation) to Enfield Church, and the ‘Medulla Grammatica’ (more correctly ‘Grammatice’), an English-Latin dictionary, to King's Norton Church (see Catholicon Anglicum, Camden Soc., Pref. x.) His ‘great English book’ he directed to be sold and the proceeds applied for the benefit of his soul, for which he made liberal provision of trentals and masses. The overseer of the will was John Alcock [q. v.], bishop of Worcester (see, Testamenta Vetusta, i. 363 et seq., and , Peerage, ed. Brydges, viii. 324 et seq.) The Trinity Chapel mentioned in the will was Littleton's domestic oratory, where by license of Bishop Carpenter, dated 20 Jan. 1443–4, he was accustomed to have low mass regularly celebrated. Littleton married before the date of the license, in which his wife is named Joan, relict of Sir Philip Chetwynd of Ingestre, Staffordshire, who brought him in jointure the manors of Ingestre and Tixall, and a moiety of the manor of Grendon, Staffordshire, with other estates in the same county, and in Warwickshire and Worcestershire. She was the daughter of Sir William Burley [q. v.] of Bromscroft Castle, Shropshire, speaker of the House of Commons, from whom she inherited extensive estates in Shropshire. Littleton had issue by her three sons and two daughters. She survived him, and died on 22 March 1504–5. In his own right Littleton held, besides Frankley and several other estates in Worcestershire and Warwickshire, the manor of Arley in Staffordshire, twelve houses in Lichfield, and the advowson of the vicarage of Bromsgrove. His town house, which he rented from the abbot of Leicester at 16s. per annum, was situate on the north side of St. Sepulchre's Church. From his eldest son, William, who succeeded to Frankley and to his mother's estates, and was knighted by Henry VII for services rendered at the battle of Stoke, 16 June 1487, descends the noble family of Lyttelton. Richard, the second son, who took under Littleton's will a moiety of the manor of Baxterley, Warwickshire, and some other estates in tail, was a barrister and the ancestor of Sir Edward Littleton of Pillaton Hall, Staffordshire. His posterity died out in the male line in 1812. The present Lord Hatherton is his representative in the female line. To Thomas, his third son, Littleton devised the manor of Spetchley with other estates in Worcestershire and Staffordshire, in tail; from him both Edward, lord Littleton of Munslow [q. v.], lord keeper to Charles I, and Sir Thomas Littleton, bart. [q. v.], speaker of the House of Commons in the reign of William III, traced their descent. Both Littleton's daughters died unmarried.

Littleton's fame rests upon a short treatise on ‘Tenures’ written primarily for the instruction of his son Richard, to whom it is addressed, but which early attained the rank of a work of authority. Though preceded by, and to some extent based upon, a meagre tract of uncertain date known as ‘Olde Tenures,’ Littleton's work was substantially original, and presented in an easy, and, notwithstanding it is written in law-French, agreeable style, and within moderate compass, a full and clear account of the several estates and tenures then known to English law with their peculiar incidents. Probably no legal treatise ever combined so much of the substance with so little of the show of learning, or so happily avoided pedantic formalism without forfeiting precision of statement. The date at which it came to be recognised as an authority cannot be exactly fixed; it is, however, cited by FitzHerbert in his ‘Novel Natura Brevium,’ published in


text:
Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol

Adopted : 8 December 2012 Not in force

A. Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol
The following table shall replace the table in Annex B to the Protocol: Abbreviation: NA = not applicable.

* Countries that are undergoing the process of transition to a market economy.

All footnotes below, except for footnotes 1, 2 and 5, have been provided through communications from the respective Parties.

B. Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol
The following list shall replace the list under the heading “Greenhouse gases” in Annex A to the Protocol:

Greenhouse gases

Carbon dioxide (CO$2$)

Methane (CH$4$)

Nitrous oxide (N$2$O)

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)

Sulphur hexafluoride (SF$6$)

Nitrogen trifluoride (NF$3$)

C. Article 3, paragraph 1 bis
The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Protocol:

1 bis. The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in the third column of the table contained in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 18 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2013 to 2020.

D. Article 3, paragraph 1 ter
The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 1 bis of Article 3 of the Protocol:

1 ter. A Party included in Annex B may propose an adjustment to decrease the percentage inscribed in the third column of Annex B of its quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment inscribed in the third column of the table contained in Annex B. A proposal for such an adjustment shall be communicated to the Parties by the secretariat at least three months before the meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol at which it is proposed for adoption.

E. Article 3, paragraph 1 quater
The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 1 ter of Article 3 of the Protocol:

1 quater. An adjustment proposed by a Party included in Annex I to increase the ambition of its quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 1 ter, above shall be considered adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol unless more than three-fourths of the Parties present and voting object to its adoption. The adopted adjustment shall be communicated by the secretariat to the Depositary, who shall circulate it to all Parties, and shall enter into force on 1 January of the year following the communication by the Depositary. Such adjustments shall be binding upon Parties.

F. Article 3, paragraph 7 bis
The following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph 7 of Article 3 of the Protocol:

7 bis. In the second quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment period, from 2013 to 2020, the assigned amount for each Party included in Annex I shall be equal to the percentage inscribed for it in the third column of the table contained in Annex B of its aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A in 1990, or the base year or period determined in accordance with paragraph 5 above, multiplied by eight. Those Parties included in Annex I for whom landuse change and forestry constituted a net source of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 shall include in their 1990 emissions base year or period the aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by sources minus removals by sinks in 1990 from land-use change for the purposes of calculating their assigned amount.

G. Article 3, paragraph 7 ter
The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 7 bis of Article 3 of the Protocol:

7 ter. Any positive difference between the assigned amount of the second commitment period for a Party included in the Annex I and average annual emissions for the first three years of the preceding commitment period multiplied by eight shall be transferred to the cancellation account of that Party.

H. Article 3, paragraph 8
In paragraph 8 of Article 3 of the Protocol, the words:
 * calculation referred to in paragraph 7 above

shall be substituted by:
 * calculations referred to in paragraphs 7 and 7 bis above

I. Article 3, paragraph 8 bis
The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 8 of Article 3 of the Protocol:

8 bis. Any Party included in Annex I may use 1995 or 2000 as its base year for nitrogen trifluoride for the purposes of the calculation referred to in paragraph 7 bis above.

J. Article 3, paragraphs 12 bis and ter
The following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph 12 of Article 3 of the Protocol:

12 bis. Any units generated from market-based mechanisms to be established under the Convention or its instruments may be used by Parties included in Annex I to assist them in achieving compliance with their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3. Any such units which a Party acquires from another Party to the Convention shall be added to the assigned amount for the acquiring Party and subtracted from the quantity of units held by the transferring Party.

12 ter. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall ensure that, where units from approved activities under market-based mechanisms referred to in paragraph 12 bis above are used by Parties included in Annex I to assist them in achieving compliance with their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3, a share of these units is used to cover administrative expenses, as well as to assist developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change to meet the costs of adaptation if these units are acquired under Article 17.

K. Article 4, paragraph 2
The following words shall be added to the end of the first sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Protocol:

, or on the date of deposit of their instruments of acceptance of any amendment to Annex B pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 9

L. Article 4, paragraph 3
In paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Protocol, the words:
 * , paragraph 7

shall be substituted by:
 * to which it relates

Article 2: Entry into force
This amendment shall enter into force in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Kyoto Protocol.

title: Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/381

Rh 1534 (see the chapter on Formedon). Coke's elaborate commentary upon it testifies to the position which it held in his day. He himself evidently regarded it with a reverence bordering on superstition. ‘The most perfect and absolute work,’ he calls it, ‘that ever was written in any human science,’ an extravagance of eulogy provoked and excused by the absurd and ignorant censure of the civilian, Francis Hotman (see, Inst. pt. i. Pref. and Rep. pt. x. Pref.) Littleton's text with Coke's comment long remained the principal authority on English real property law. Both, however, have now become almost entirely obsolete, and, though still occasionally cited in the courts, are chiefly valuable to the historian and the antiquary. The historical importance of the ‘Tenures’ was early appreciated by the Norman lawyer, Houard, who translated the work into modern French under the title ‘Anciennes Loix des François conservées dans les coutumes Angloises recueillies par Littleton,’ Rouen, 1766, 2 vols. 4to; 2nd ed. 1779. From the omission of certain minor tenures and all reference to cases of a later date than 1474–5, Coke inferred that Littleton left the work unfinished at that date. On the other hand the earliest extant manuscript of the ‘Tenures,’ Mm. v. 2, in the Cambridge University Library, contains internal evidence of having been in circulation in 1480.

The editio princeps of the ‘Tenures’ is a folio published at London by Lettou and Machlinia, but without date or title. The rudeness of the black letter and the free use made of abbreviations point to a very early date, but that of 1481 assigned by Conyers Middleton in his ‘Dissertation concerning the Origin of Printing in England’ is wholly conjectural. Another folio edition, also without date or title, published at London by Machlinia alone, has fewer abbreviations and more regular type. Copies of both these editions are in the British Museum. There are also two folio editions by Pynson without date or title, one printed by William Le Tailleur at Rouen, and conjecturally assigned to 1495, the other, probably of later date, published at London, together with the ‘Olde Tenures,’ and adorned with an engraved frontispiece representing Henry VII and his court. The same frontispiece, with the title ‘Leteltun Teners new Correcte,’ is found in another undated folio edition, also by Pynson. The first edition, with both date and title, is ‘Leteltun Tenuris new Correcte,’ London, Pynson, 1516, fol. This was followed by ‘Lytylton Tenures newly and moost truly Correctyd and Amendyd’ (with the ‘Olde Tenures’ and ‘Natura Brevium’), London, Pynson, 1525, 16mo; 1528, 16mo and 24mo; reprint by Rastell, 1534, 8vo. These editions are all in Gothic type. Two editions in Roman type were published by Redman with the title ‘Les Tenures de Lyttelton novelment Imprimes et ovesque toute diligence Revises, Coriges, et Amendes: et ensement ove plusours authoriteis annotes et marques en le marge de cest liver ou mesme les cases sount overtement debattus et purparles pluis a large,’ London, 12mo and fol. Both are of uncertain date, but the 12mo seems to be referred to in the address to the reader appended to Pynson's 1525 edition. Another, also by Redman, with the title ‘Lytylton Tenures newly Imprinted,’ is assigned by Herbert (Typ. Antiq. ed. 1790, iii. 1787) to 1540 (32mo). Other black-letter editions appeared in London in 1530, 1545, and 1553, and were followed by ‘Lyttylton Tenures newly Revised and truly Corrected, with a Table after the alphabete to finde out briefely the Cases desired in the same,’ London, Tottell, 1554, 8vo; ‘Litleton's Tenures. Conferred with divers true wrytten copies, and purged of sondry cases, having in some places more than ye autour wrote and lesse in other some,’ London, Tottell, 1557, 8vo; ‘Les Tenures du Monsieur Littleton ovesque certein cases addes per auters de puisne temps,’ &c., London, Tottell, 1567, 8vo (the ‘certein cases’ are those omitted from the preceding edition), 1572 8vo, 1577 and 1579 16mo, 1581 8vo (ed. William West [q. v.], author of the ‘Symboleography,’ who for the first time divided the text into numbered sections), 1583 8vo, 1588 4to (a copy of this edition, with manuscript notes attributed to Lord Clarendon, is in Lincoln's Inn Library), and 1591 4to; Yetsweirt, 1594, 12mo (in this edition, which is described on the title-page as ‘Revieu et Change en lordre des Sections,’ an attempt was made to improve on West's distribution of the text); Wight and Bonham Norton, 1599, 12mo (described as ‘Revieu et Corrige en divers Lieux’); Wight, 1604, 4to (a reprint of West's edition); Stationers' Company, 1608, 1612, 1617 (all 12mo reprints of West's edition). Another edition was published by the assigns of John More, London, 1639, 12mo.

The following are the principal black-letter English versions: ‘Lyttilton Tenures truely translated into Englysshe,’ London, Berthelet 1538, Powell 1548, Marshe 1556, all 8vo; ‘Lyttelton Tenures in Englysshe,’ London, Petyt (no date), 8vo, Tottell, 1556 16mo and 1586 8vo; ‘Littleton's Tenures in English. Lately Perused and Amended,’ London, 1594 and 1597 8vo, 1604 12mo, 1612, 1621, 1627, and 1656, all 8vo. In Roman type are: ‘Littleton's Tenures in French and English,’


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/382

Rh London, 1671, 12mo; ‘Littleton's Tenures in English,’ London, 1825, 8vo, and 1845, 24mo, and ‘Lyttleton, his Treatise of Tenures in French and English. A new edition printed from the most ancient copies and collated with the various readings of the Cambridge MSS. To which are added the Ancient Treatise of “The Olde Tenures” and “The Customs of Kent.” By T. E. Tomlins,’ London, 1841, 8vo.

A commentary on the ‘Tenures’ written during the reign of James I remained in manuscript (Harl. 1621) until 1829, when it was edited by Henry Cary of Lincoln's Inn, with the title ‘A Commentary on the Tenures of Littleton, written prior to the publication of Coke upon Littleton,’ London, 8vo. The commentator's name is unknown. The commentary is praised by Hargrave as ‘very methodical and instructive.’ As to Coke's commentary, which was first published in 1628, see.

LITTLETON, THOMAS (1647?–1710), speaker of the House of Commons and treasurer of the navy, born probably in 1647, was the younger son of Sir Thomas Littleton, second baronet, of Stoke St. Milborough, Shropshire, and North Ockendon, Essex, and of Anne, daughter of Edward, lord Littleton. As a younger son he was apprenticed to a city merchant, but on the death of his elder brother, Edward, was sent to Oxford, matriculating at St. Edmund Hall on 21 April 1665. He entered at the Inner Temple in 1671, and succeeded to the baronetcy on the death of his father ten years later. He was elected to the Convention of 1689 for the borough of Woodstock and continued to represent that place till 1702. It was he and not his father, with whom Macaulay confuses him, who was chosen one of the ‘managers’ for the commons in the conference with the House of Lords on the form of words to be used in declaring the throne vacant. According to Boyer, ‘he acquitted himself with much applause.’ An active whig, he strongly supported the action of William III in vetoing the Place Bill of 1693, and also spoke in favour of the attainder of Sir John Fenwick (1645?–1697) [q. v.] He especially attached himself to Montagu, and in 1697 became a lord of the admiralty, when that statesman was named first lord of the treasury (see, Hist. iv. 779, and note).

In December 1698 Littleton was put forward by the junto for the speakership of the commons, and was elected by 242 votes to 135, no other candidate being nominated, though there was a warm debate of two hours, arising mainly out of the disappointed ambition of Sir Edward Seymour [q. v.] The election had also excited some interest outside the house, and a pamphlet was circulated entitled ‘Considerations on the Choice of a Speaker,’ in which the claims of both Littleton and Seymour were opposed. Littleton's weak health prevented him from proving a very efficient speaker, and his occupation of the chair ceased at the dissolution in 1700. In the next parliament he succeeded Harley, the new speaker, as treasurer of the navy, and held that office till his death. He was the means of introducing useful reforms into his department (, History of his own Time, v. 64; note by Speaker Onslow). Littleton represented Castle Rising, Norfolk, in the first parliament of Queen Anne, and Chichester in the first parliament of Great Britain, and from 14 Dec. 1708 until his death sat for Portsmouth. He defended the action of the House of Lords in the case of Ashby v. White; opposed the motion to tack the Occasional Conformity Bill to the land-tax in 1704; and on 8 Feb. 1707 took part in a debate on the articles of union with Scotland, when he denied that the measure was being forced through with any undue haste. He died on 1 Jan. 1710, when the baronetcy became extinct. He left no issue by his marriage with Ann, daughter of Benjamin Baun, esq., of Westcott, Gloucestershire. He is said to have been ‘a man of ready wit and good understanding;’ Macky calls him ‘a stern-looked man, with a brown complexion, well shaped.’ Macaulay describes him as having inherited his father's eloquence, and as ‘one of the ablest and most consistent whigs in the House of Commons.’


text: Scientific Memoirs/1/On the Laws according to which the Magnet acts upon a Spiral, when it is suddenly approached to or removed from it; and on the most advantageous Mode of constructing Spirals for Magneto-Electrical purposes


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/383

Rh A portrait, painted in 1700 by T. Forster, was engraved by J. Simon (, Cat. of Engraved Portraits).

LITTLEWOOD, WILLIAM EDENSOR (1831–1886), miscellaneous writer, born at London 2 Aug. 1831, was only son of George Littlewood, printer, of London, by Catherine, his wife. He was educated at Merchant Taylors' School and at Pembroke College, Cambridge, which he entered on 12 June 1850. He gained in 1851 the chancellor's medal by an English poem of more than average merit on Gustavus Adolphus, printed in ‘A Complete Collection of English Poems,’ Cambridge, 1859, 8vo. He graduated B.A. in 1854, taking a third class in classics and being bracketed thirty-fifth wrangler. He proceeded M.A. in 1860, was ordained deacon in 1857, and priest in 1858. He was curate of St. John's, Wakefield, in 1857–61, head-master of Hipperholme grammar school, Halifax, Yorkshire, 1861–8, curate of Southall, Middlesex, 1868–70, perpetual curate of Ironville, Derbyshire, 1870–2, vicar of St. James's, Bath, 1872–81, and afterwards home missionary in charge of St. Thomas's, Finsbury Park, London. He died on 3 Sept. 1886. Besides various contributions to the ‘Sunday at Home,’ Littlewood published: 1. ‘A Garland from the Parables,’ a volume of religious verse, London, 1858, 8vo. 2. ‘Essentials of English History,’ London, 1862, 8vo; 2nd edit. 1865. 3. ‘An Elementary History of Britain’ (in ‘Cassell's Primary Series’), London, 1869, 8vo. 4. ‘England at Home. Being a familiar Description of the principal Physical, Social, Commercial, and Topographical features of England and Wales,’ London, 1870, 8vo. 5. ‘Essentials of New Testament Study. Intended as a Companion to the New Testament’ (a work of considerable and well-digested learning), London, 1872, 8vo; 6. ‘Down in Dingyshire,’ 1872. 7. ‘The Story of the Wanderer,’ 1874. 8. ‘Lovely in their Lives: a book for earnest boys,’ London, 1876, 8vo. 9. ‘The Visitation of the Poor: a practical Manual for District Visitors,’ &c., Bath, 1876, 16mo. 10. ‘Bible Biographies, or Stories from the Old Testament,’ London, 1878, 8vo.

LITTON, MARIE (1847–1884), actress, whose real name was, a native of Derbyshire, was born in 1847. She made what was said to be her first appearance on any stage at the Princess's Theatre, 23 March 1868, as Effie Deans in a revised version by Boucicault of his adaptation from the ‘Heart of Midlothian,’ the ‘Trial of Effie Deans.’ It was a performance of much promise. On the opening of the Gaiety Theatre, 21 Dec. 1868, Miss Litton played Mrs. Cureton in ‘On the Cards,’ an adaptation by Mr. Alfred Thompson from ‘L'Escamoteur.’ At the same house she appeared, 13 Dec. 1869, in Byron's ‘Uncle Dick's Darling.’ She was for a time connected with the Brighton Theatre. On 25 Jan. 1871 she undertook the management of the Court Theatre in Sloane Square, London, and opened with ‘Randall's Thumb’ by (Sir) W. S. Gilbert. She retained the theatre for more than three years, and during that period placed on the stage, among other pieces, ‘Creatures of Impulse,’ ‘Great Expectations,’ ‘On Guard,’ the ‘Happy Land,’ and the ‘Wedding March,’ all by (Sir) W. S. Gilbert; ‘Broken Spells,’ by Westland Marston and W. G. Wills; ‘A Son of the Soil,’ adapted from ‘Le Lion Amoureux’ of Ponsard, by Mr. Herman C. Merivale; ‘Alone,’ by Palgrave Simpson and Herman Merivale; the ‘White Pilgrim,’ by Merivale; ‘Ready-Money Mortiboy,’ by (Sir) Walter Besant and James Rice; and ‘Brighton,’ adapted by Frank Marshall from ‘Saratoga’ of Bronson Howard. Miss Litton took secondary parts at her own theatre, and while managing the Court played Zayda at the Haymarket in Gilbert's ‘Wicked World’ (4 Jan. 1874). On 13 March 1874 she resigned the Court Theatre to Mr. Hare. On 24 April 1875 she was at the St. James's the original Caroline Effingham in Mr. Gilbert's ‘Tom Cobb,’ which was produced under her management. Two years later, at the Prince of Wales's, Tottenham Street, Tottenham Court Road, she played Mrs. Montressor in Tom Taylor's ‘An Unequal Match.’

Miss Litton first achieved distinguished success when she appeared in old comedy. In 1878 she took the theatre attached to the Royal Aquarium at Westminster, which she subsequently called the Imperial, and began with a fairly strong company a series of revivals of so-called classic pieces. She herself played Lady Teazle, Lydia Languish, Olivia in the ‘Vicar of Wakefield,’ and Miss Hardcastle. Without ever attaining a thorough mastery of her art, she displayed in these


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/384

Rh characters much brightness and refinement. Breadth of style she never reached, and her voice was hard and not too sympathetic. So pleasant and gracious, however, was her presence, and so easy were her movements, that even in parts out of her range she inspired interest and sympathy. Her Miss Hardcastle, a bewitching performance, was repeated 137 nights at the Imperial, and her Rosalind in ‘As you like it,’ after being played one hundred nights at the same house, was transferred for a summer season in 1880 to Drury Lane. Her company included at the house last named Mr. Herman Vezin (Jaques), Mr. Lionel Brough (Touchstone), Mr. W. Farren (Adam), Mr. Kyrle Bellew (Orlando), and Miss Sylvia Hodson (Audrey). A character in which she was seen to even greater advantage was Peggy in an alteration of the ‘Country Girl,’ which was given somewhat later at afternoon representations at the Gaiety. In October 1880 Miss Litton opened as manager the new Theatre Royal, Glasgow. On 6 Aug. 1881 at Drury Lane she played Eve de Malvoisie, a French siren, in ‘Youth,’ by Messrs. Pettitt and Harris. She played, 14 Jan. 1883, at the Globe in the ‘Cynic’ of Mr. Herman C. Merivale, and 25 March was the original Vere Herbert in Mr. H. Hamilton's adaptation of Ouida's novel of ‘Moths.’ The last impersonation was excellent. Signs of serious illness had then declared themselves, and she was soon compelled to quit the stage. She had married Mr. Wybrow Robertson, by whom she had two children, a boy and a girl, and with her husband and family she withdrew to Ascot, where, though buoyed up by hope of returning to the stage, her health gradually failed. She died at her town house, 6 Alfred Place, W., South Kensington, on 1 April 1884.

LIULF or LIGULF (d. 1080), Anglo-Saxon nobleman, was the friend of Walcher, bishop of Durham. Nothing is known of his parentage, but he claimed large possessions in many parts of England by hereditary right ( s.a. 1080). He married Ealdgyth, a daughter of Ealdred, earl of Northumbria. The lady was first cousin to Gospatric, earl of Northumberland (1067–1072) [q. v.], and sister of Æthelflæd, the mother of Waltheof, his successor, 1072–85 ( ed. Hinde, p. 92). Florence of Worcester says that Liulf retired to Durham with his men because of the depredations of the Normans, and because of his devotion to St. Cuthbert, who was wont, so he used to tell Archbishop Aldred [q. v.], to appear to him. As the friend of Bishop Walcher he excited the envy of Leobwine, the bishop's chaplain, who, indignant at the share Liulf had in all the bishop's councils and exasperated by a rebuke, at length plotted Liulf's death. Leobwine was joined in the plot by Gilbert, a Lotharingian and kinsman of the bishop, who had committed Northumbria to his charge. Leobwine and Gilbert marched to the vill where Liulf lived and killed him, with most of his household, in 1080. In revenge for this murder, Walcher, who was believed to be privy to it, was himself slain at Gateshead. Liulf had two sons, Uhtred and Morkere; Morkere was placed by his cousin Waltheof in the monastery of Jarrow during Liulf's lifetime (ib. Ges. Reg. s.a. 1080; Monasticon, i. 236).

LIVELY, EDWARD (1545?–1605), Hebrew professor at Cambridge, born in or about 1545, was matriculated at Cambridge as a sizar of Trinity College in February 1564–5, and afterwards became a scholar of that house. In 1568–9 he graduated B.A. He was admitted a minor fellow of Trinity College on 24 Sept. 1571, and a major fellow on 18 April 1572. In the latter year he commenced M.A. (, Athenæ Cantabr. ii. 407, 554). In the dedication of his ‘Chronologie of the Persian Monarchy’ he acknowledges that he owed his scholarship and fellowship, besides other greater benefits, to the good will of Archbishop Whitgift. During his residence in the university he received instruction in Hebrew from the famous John Drusius. About May 1575 he was unanimously elected regius professor of Hebrew, in spite of the fact that Lord Burghley, chancellor of the university, had recommended the appointment of Philip Bignon. His fellowship became vacant in or before 1578, when he married Catherine, daughter of Thomas Lorkin [q. v.], regius professor of physic. In 1584 Lively was one of four persons whom Archbishop Whitgift recommended for the deanery of Peterborough. On 21 June 1602 he was collated to a prebend in that cathedral (, Fasti, ed. Hardy, ii. 545).

He was one of the fifty-four learned men appointed by King James in 1604 to make the ‘authorised’ translation of the Bible, and on 20 Sept. in that year he was presented by his majesty to the rectory of Purleigh, Essex,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/385

Rh at the instance of Archbishop Bancroft. Previously he had always been in pecuniary difficulties, but he was now well provided for. He died in 1605, and was buried on 7 May at St. Edward's, Cambridge. He left eleven children, ‘destitute of necessaries for their maintenance.’ Ussher, Eyre, Pocock, and Gataker speak in eulogistic terms of Lively's attainments as a Hebrew scholar.

His works are: 1. ‘Annotationes in quinq. priores ex Minoribus Prophetis, cum Latina eorum interpretatione … ad normam Hebraicæ veritatis diligenter examinata,’ London, 1587, 12mo; reprinted in Pearson's ‘Critici Sacri,’ 1660. Dedicated to Sir Francis Walsingham. 2. ‘A true Chronologie of the Times of the Persian Monarchie and after to the destruction of Ierusalem by the Romanes. Wherein by the way briefly is handled the day of Christ his birth: with a declaration of the Angel Gabriels message to Daniel in the end of his ninth chapter against the friuolous conceits of Matthew Beroald,’ London, 1597, 12mo. Dedicated to Archbishop Whitgift. 3. ‘Commentationes in Martinium,’ manuscript in the Cambridge University Library, EE. 6. 23. It is a commentary on the Hebrew Grammar of Peter Martinius. 4. ‘Treatise touching the canonical Books of the Old Testament,’ manuscript in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, F. 106. 5. ‘Chronologia à Mundo condito ad annum 3598,’ 2 vols., manuscript in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, F. 88, 89.

LIVERPOOL,. [See, 1727–1808, first ; , 1770–1828, second ; , 1784–1851, third .]

LIVERSEEGE, HENRY (1803–1832), painter, was born on 4 Sept. 1803 at Manchester, where his father was employed in a cotton-mill. Neglected by his father, he owed his early education to an uncle, and was encouraged to pursue the profession of an artist, for which he showed an early proclivity. His earliest attempts at painting were in portraiture, but he soon devoted himself to romantic or supernatural subjects. He also excelled as an amateur actor and was devoted to the stage. Some small pictures of ‘Banditti’ exhibited in Manchester in 1827 attracted notice, and about the end of that year he came to London to study at the British Museum, and also to copy the works of old masters at the British Institution. Through some informality in his application, he failed to obtain admission as a student of the Royal Academy. He returned to Manchester in 1828 and resumed portrait-painting, but in that year he exhibited at Birmingham ‘Hudibras in the Stocks,’ and at the Royal Academy in London, ‘Wildrake presenting Col. Everard's Challenge to Charles II’ (now in the possession of Mr. W. Barclay Squire). He visited London again in 1829, but in 1830 returned to Manchester, where his mother died. He paid one more visit to London, where he was patronised by the Duke of Devonshire. Liverseege suffered through life from ill-health, which produced a nervous and despondent manner; after returning to Manchester in 1831 his health completely broke down, and he died on 13 Jan. 1832, in his twenty-ninth year. He was buried in St. Luke's churchyard, Manchester.

Liverseege was a painter of some promise, and his small pictures have much dramatic force, though they show defects of drawing, and have not preserved their colour. Among the best were ‘The Recruit,’ ‘Catherine Seyton,’ ‘The Grave-diggers’ (engraved by S. Smith), ‘Captain Macheath in Prison,’ ‘Benedicite’ (purchased by Charles Heath and engraved in ‘The Keepsake,’ 1833), and ‘Don Quixote reading in his Study.’ A set of thirty-five mezzotint engravings from his pictures was published in 1875, with a portrait engraved from a painting by his friend William Bradley. Another portrait appeared in Arnold's ‘Library of the Fine Arts’ for February 1832.

LIVESAY, RICHARD (d. 1823?), portrait and landscape painter, was a pupil of Benjamin West, and commenced his career in London, exhibiting for the first time at the Royal Academy in 1776. Between 1777 and 1785 he lodged with Hogarth's widow in Leicester Fields, and executed for her a series of facsimiles of drawings by Hogarth, among them the seven illustrating the well-known ‘Tour,’ published in 1782. Being engaged by West to copy pictures at Windsor, Livesay went to reside there about 1790,


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/536

516 thither by their own desire for adventure. Never was the uncertainty of war more signally exemplified. Ferdinand had the advantage of a good cause. He had numbers, courage, confidence on his side. The European, in fair battle, man to man, was more than a natch for the Asiatic; yet the campaign was a complete and ruinous failure. He attacked Pesth; but the German troops were beaten back in the assault, and suffered, though but slightly, in a series of insignificant skirmishes. They were disheartened, not by defeat, but by the absence of success, and by a consciousness of Ferdinand's bad generalship. They became disorganized, they broke in pieces, scattered, and retreated in a panic.

The success of his confederate enabled Francis to endure more composedly his own disappointment. He had done little that summer, he said, for want of funds, and want of preparation; when the next year came, with the help of the Turkish fleet, he would carry the world before him. Every day his relations with England were becoming more inimical; but he was in his reckless mood, defiant and indifferent. 'He would give his daughter to be strumpet to a bordel,' he said, 'to be sure of the encounter with the Emperor;' as to Henry, it was enough that he was secure of Beton, and a Scottish army had but to cross the border to arouse a fresh Pilgrimage of Grace.


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/537

1542.] The Scots, it seemed, were of the same opinion. Already, at the close of the summer, before the harvest had been gathered in, the depredations began on a scale which was the prelude of war. Nor, indeed, if James obtained access to the secrets of the English council, was the attack wholly unprovoked. Being satisfied, at last, that as long as the Scottish King avoided the interview, he could not liberate him from Beton's control, Henry, since a free visit could not be arranged, had thought of employing some gentle constraint. James was in the habit of going at night on secret expeditions of a character questionable or unquestionable, with few attendants. Sir Thomas Wharton, the Warden of the West Marches, suggested that, if he watched his opportunity, he might contrive to stoop down upon the adventurous prince unexpectedly, snatch him over the Border, and escort him thus to his uncle's presence. Henry listened not unfavourably; but he would hardly sanction such an enterprise on his own authority, and referred it to the council, who saw difficulties, and even were something scandalized. The warden might fail. James might be hurt; perhaps might be killed in the scuffle. They would not hear of it, and almost reproached the King for inviting them to consider a proposition so out of all order. Henry would not act


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/63

MacDonnell and was anxious, in the probable event of the prince's refusal, to obtain the lord-lieutenancy for himself, sailed from Waterford on 20 Feb. 1648, seven days before his colleagues. The appointment of the Marquis of Ormonde to the place he aspired to was a bitter disappointment to Antrim. He returned to Ireland in September, opposed the peace between the confederates and Ormonde, and heartily supported the scheme for a union between Owen O'Neill and the parliament. Early in 1649 he succeeded, by means of one Crilly, a priest, in opening up a correspondence with Cromwell, to whom he subsequently rendered some service at the siege of Ross and other places. Carte, in his 'Life of Ormonde' (ib. 101), has a very questionable story, for which he adduces no authority, that at the time when Inchiquin's forces revolted to the parliament, Antrim forged an agreement between that nobleman and Michael Jones, whereby the former engaged to betray the king's cause and army. Inchiquin, who vehemently denied the charge (, Aphorismical Discovery, ii. 332-3), challenged Antrim, but he, declining to give the other the usual satisfaction, 'made a solemn acknowledgment of his crime before the lord-lieutenant and four of the commissioners of trust, confessing that the pretended instrument was a mere forgery and a contrivance between himself and Jones.' But it is more than likely (, Cal. Clarendon Papers, ii. 68) that Inchiquin did meditate some such step as rumour attributed to him (cf. Letter from Lord Broghill to the Speaker, 19 Dec. 1649 in Several Proceedings, 4 Dec. to 11 Jan. 1649-60, where for 'Lord ' Mr. S. R. Gardiner suggests we ought to read 'Lord Inchiquin'). On the death of Owen O'Neill in November 1649 Antrim hoped to succeed him in the command of the northern army, with the intention probably of effecting a reconciliation with the parliament, but being disappointed in this4)y the election of the Bishop of Clogher, he entered into correspondence with Ireton, and his services being accepted, he was present at the siege of Carlow. In December 1650 he was allowed to return to England, with an order protecting him from his creditors, who were clamorous for his arrest (cf. Antrim to Henry Cromwell, 11 April 1657, in Lansdowne MS. 821, 14); and his estate in Antrim having been assigned in satisfaction of adventurers' claims, he received a pension from government of 500/., subsequently increased to 800l., together with certain lands, as an innocent papist, in co. Mayo.

As a catholic, Antrim, at the Restoration, stood outside the Act of Oblivion, and on going to court to petition for the restoration of his estate, he was, through the representations of his enemies, notably of Sir John Clotworthy, who had acquired considerable part of it in the barony of Dunluce, committed to the Tower, and was only liberated after several months' imprisonment, on Lords Moore, Dillon, and Taaffe entering into recognisances in 20,000l. that he would appear within six weeks before the lords justices in Ireland, to whom his case was remitted. After more than fourteen months' attendance in Dublin he was at last dismissed and allowed to return to England. With the assistance of the queen-mother, a letter was in December 16o3 obtained directing a bill to be prepared for his restoration, but the council in Ireland were unanimous that such a bill ought not in his case to be transmitted. Antrim thereupon petitioned the king, and his petition being referred to a committee of the council, an order in his favour was after some delay obtained. Notwithstanding the opposition of Ormonde, who owed him a grudge for his conduct in 1647-8, the order of the council, together with a letter from the king in his favour, was transmitted to the commissioners of claims, and on 20 Aug. 1663 he was awarded a decree of innocence (printed in, MacDonnells, App. p. xi). This decision caused considerable consternation among the adventurers, who spared no efforts to discredit Antrim in the king's eyes (see Murder will out, or the Kings Letter justifying the Marquess of Antrim, &c), and upon their petition a fresh trial was ordered. In order to prevent this, Antrim, who felt his weakness on certain technical points, threw himself on the king's mercy, whereupon the king was pleased to pardon him, and provision was made in the Act of Explanation for his restoration to his estates and for cancelling the decree of the court of claims.

On his return to Ireland, Antrim found his castle of Dunluce so dilapidated that he built a new residence for himself at Ballymagarry House, not far from the castle. He was a great lover of field-sports, and the remainder of his life is traditionally said to have been devoted to hunting and hawking. He took no further interest in politics, and died at Ballymagarry on 3 Feb. 1683, when, after lying in state for some time, he was buried in the family vault at Bunnamairge. He was a tall, clean-limbed handsome man, with red hair. For the settlement of his youthful debts he assigned in his will the baronies of Carey and Kilconway and the Long Liberties of Coleraine.

Antrim's first wife, the Duchess-dowager


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/538

518 against their opinion. Wharton's zeal was not encouraged; and James, it is likely, never heard that the suggestion had been made. But whether he knew it, or was merely obeying his destiny, he allowed himself to become the instrument of the crooked policy of Francis; and, to his misfortune, he was encouraged at the outset by a gleam of success. Lord Maxwell, the Scottish warden, having been in vain called upon to keep the Borderers quiet, Sir Robert Bowes crossed the Marches in pursuit of a party of them, and, falling into an ambuscade at Halydon Rigg, was taken prisoner with a number of other gentlemen. War was now unavoidable.

James, elated at his victory, sent a messenger with a report of it to the French Court. In crossing the Channel the petty skirmish grew into a great action, at which a thousand English had been killed, and Francis himself spoke without reserve of the King of England's approaching destruction. 'Your Majesty,' so Paget reported him as saying, 'had begun with the Scots, and the Scots had given you your hands full. He did understand that you would make war upon him; he feared you nothing at all. You were able to do him no hurt; for you had against you the Pope; the Emperor was not your assured friend; you had made the Scottish King your enemy; your own people loved you not; and you had against you God and all the world. This should


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/387

Rh attempted to provide cheap and elevating reading. It ceased because Livesey was anxious to advocate teetotal principles, and for that purpose issued in January 1834 the ‘Preston Temperance Advocate,’ monthly, price 1d. This was the first teetotal publication produced in England. Livesey conducted it for four years, when it passed into other hands, and finally became the organ of the National Temperance League. In January 1838 the ‘Moral Reformer’ was revived, and continued till February 1839. In 1841 Livesey engaged in the agitation against the corn laws. From December 1841 till the repeal of the laws he issued ‘The Struggle’ weekly, price halfpenny. The influence of the 235 numbers issued was most valuable to the repealers (, Cobden, People's edit. p. 29). From August 1851 till May 1852 he issued the ‘Teetotal Progressionist,’ and in January 1867 commenced a penny monthly, the ‘Staunch Teetotaler,’ which was continued for two years. From 1844 to 1859, under the management of Livesey and his sons, the ‘Preston Guardian,’ issued weekly, became the leading North Lancashire paper. In 1881 Livesey published his reminiscences, under the title of ‘The Autobiography of Joseph Livesey,’ Preston, 1881; 2nd edit. London, 1885, a striking record of untiring diligence and sturdy self-help. Livesey was also author of numerous tracts and lectures.

 LIVESEY, MICHAEL (1611–1663?), regicide, born in 1611, was only son of Gabriel Livesey of Hollingbourne, Kent, by his second wife, Anne, daughter of Sir Michael Sondes, knt., of Throwley in the same county (, County Genealogies, ‘Kent,’ p. 197). In 1627 he was created a baronet, and afterwards fixed his residence at East Church, Isle of Sheppey. At the outbreak of the civil war he took sides with the parliament. The royal proclamation of 8 Nov. 1642 excepted him from the general pardon offered to the county of Kent as being a ‘traitor and stirrer of sedition’ (, Hist. Coll. pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 54). He, however, organised Kent for the parliament, for which he was thanked and ordered by an ordinance passed on 21 Nov. to aid the four deputy-lieutenants for Sussex in putting that county into the like posture of defence. One of his acts was to seize and send up to parliament, about December 1642, the loyalist high sheriff of Kent, Sir William Brockham, who intended as soon as Livesey absented himself from the county to raise an army for the king by power of his commission. Livesey, who was colonel of the Kentish horse, subsequently joined the parliamentary forces in taking Chichester (, Parliamentary Chronicle, pt. i. pp. 224, 235). The weald of Kent was specially placed in his control, and in July 1643 he took Yalding, which was garrisoned for the king (ib. pt. iii. pp. 14–15). During the same year he was present at the siege of Arundel. In more important engagements Livesey showed himself to be lacking in the qualities of a soldier. At the battle of Cheriton Down, on 29 March 1644, he deliberately ran away. His overbearing demeanour, combined with his cowardice and incapacity, made him so generally disliked that his major, Anthony Weldon, preferred several articles of complaint against him. In revenge Livesey tried to have Weldon and his troop transferred to the army of Sir Richard Grenville (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1644, pp. 171–2). He also quarrelled with his general, Sir William Waller, and did his best to harass him by detaching the Kentish horse from his army. He was consequently summoned to attend the committee of both kingdoms in July 1644 (ib. 1644, pp. 376–7, 384), but his social influence was very great, and the committee, after treating him with great deference, merely requested him to return with his regiment to Abingdon (ib. 1644, p. 423). In April 1645 Livesey was quartered at Sevenoaks, and refused to obey an order to join the army of Sir Thomas Fairfax, and encouraged his men to mutiny (ib. 1644–1645). On 15 Sept. following he was elected M.P. for Queenborough, Kent, in place of William Harrison, declared ‘disabled to sit.’ In December 1647 he quelled disturbances at Canterbury with a force of two thousand men (Cal. Clarendon State Papers, i. 424), and during this and the following year was busily engaged in reorganising the Kentish horse (, Relation, 1650, p. 95). Upon being appointed a commissioner to try the king, he attended every day of the trial and signed the warrant. In May 1659 Livesey declined Lenthall's summons to return to his place in the Long parliament, on the ground of ill-health (letter in Tanner MS. LI. 50); but on 28 Jan. 1659–60 he was nominated a commissioner of the admiralty and navy (Commons' Journals, vii. 825). At the Restoration he escaped to the Low Countries. In a letter from William Smith to John Langley, dated 12 Oct. 1660, Livesey is said to have been cut to pieces by the Dutch boors, upon being denounced as one of the king's murderers by a gentleman whom he had formerly ‘highly abused’ in


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/539

1542.] be your Majesty's ruin. He had done much for you, and you little for him; and when Pope, and Emperor, and all the world would have had him to overrun you and your realm, he withheld himself, and stayed them all.' Paget said his heart 'throbbed with anger,' at this most audacious speech. Francis owed his release from a Spanish prison to Henry's interference; he owed the recovery of his children to Henry's money; and he had repaid him with promises, broken as easily as they were made; with intrigues in Scotland, ceaseless and mischievous; with the breach of a series of engagements which had run parallel to the quarrel with the Papacy; and now, at last, with the repudiation of his debts. If England was not invaded in 1539, her escape was not due to the King of France, but to the cannon which guarded the English shores, and the nerve with which English conspiracies had been crushed. Henry had ample cause of quarrel with every Catholic sovereign in Europe, had he cared to insist upon it. Francis believed that he would have God and the world against him, and that his ruin was near. Francis was an


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/540

520 astrologer; and the English, as Paget said, were morsels less easy to swallow.

The Scots desired war, and war they should have. Halydon Rigg had been taken by the Scottish clergy as an earnest of instant triumph and an evidence of Divine favour. 'All is ours,' was the cry among them. 'The English are but heretics. If we be a thousand, and they ten thousand, they dare not fight. France shall enter on one part, and we on the other; and so shall England be conquered within a year.' In reply to these loud menaces the Duke of Norfolk moved forward from York, where his troops had collected; and Henry at the same time issued a manifesto of the causes by which he was compelled to take a course that 'he so much abhorred.'

'Being now enforced to the war,' he said, 'which we have always hitherto so much fled, by one who, above all others, for our manifold benefits towards him, hath most just cause to love us, honour us, and rejoice in our quietness, we have thought good to notify unto the world his doings and behaviour in the provocation of this war, and likewise the means and ways by us used to eschew and avoid it; and by utterance and divulging of that matter to disburden some part of our inward displeasure and grief. The King of Scots, our nephew and neighbour, whom we in his youth and tender age preserved and maintained from the great danger of others, and by our authority conduced him safely to the real possession of his estate, he now compelleth and


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/541

1542.] forceth us, for the preservation of our honour and right, to use our power against him. The like unkindness hath been heretofore showed in other semblable cases against God's law, man's law, and all humanity; but the oftener it chanceth, the more it is to be abhorred.

'It hath been very rarely and seldom seen before that a king of Scots had had in marriage a daughter of England. We cannot, we will not reprehend the King our father's act therein; but lament and be sorry it took no better effect. The King our father minded love, amity, and perpetual friendship between the posterity of both, which how soon it failed, the death of the King of Scots, as a just punishment of God for his invasion into this our realm, is and shall be a perpetual testimony. And yet in that time could not the unkindness of the father extinguish in us the natural love of our nephew his son, being then in the miserable age of tender youth; but we then, forgetting the displeasure that should have worthily provoked us to invade that realm, nourished and brought up our nephew to achieve his father's Government, wherein he now so unkindly behaveth him towards us. Our chief grief and displeasure is that, under a colour of fair speech and flattering words, we be indeed so injured, contemned, and despised, as we ought not with sufferance to pass over. Words, writings, letters, messages, embassies, excuses, allegations could not be more pleasantly, more gently, nor more reverently devised and sent than hath been made on the King of Scots' behalf to us; and ever we trusted the tree would bring forth good fruit, that was of the


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/542

522 one part of so good a stock, and continually in appearance put forth so fair buds, and therefore would hardly believe or give ear to others that ever alleged the deeds of the contrary, being nevertheless the same deeds so manifest as we must needs have regarded them had we not been loath to think evil of our nephew. And thereupon, having a message sent unto us the year past from our said nephew, and a promise made for the repairing of the King of Scots unto us to York, and after great preparation on our part made therefore, the same meeting was not only disappointed, but also an invasion was made into our realm, declaring an evident contempt of us.

'We were yet glad to impute the default of the meeting to the advice of his council, and the invasion to the lewdness of his subjects; and albeit the King of Scots having, contrary to the article of amity, received and entertained such rebels as were of the chief and principal in stirring the insurrection of the north against us, with refusal beforetime, upon request made, to restore the same; yet, nevertheless, we were content to forbear to press them over extremely in the matter of the rebels, and gave a benign audience to such ambassadors as repaired hither, as if no such cause of displeasure had occurred.

'In the mean time of these fair words the deeds of the Borders were as extreme as might be, and our subjects spoiled; and in a raid made by Sir Robert Bowes, for a revenge thereof, the same Sir Robert Bowes, with many others taken prisoners, are yet detained in


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/543

1542.], without putting them to fine and ransom, as hath ever been accustomed. And being at the same time a surceaunce made on both sides, for the settlement of these matters of the Border, by commissioners appointed therefor, the Scots ceased not to make sundry invasions into our realm, in such wise as we were compelled to forget fair words, and only to consider the King of Scots' deeds, which appeared to us of that sort as they ought not for our duty in defence of our subjects, and could not in respect of our honour, be passed over unreformed; and therefore we put in a readiness our army as a due mean whereby we might attain such peace as for the safeguard of our subjects we be bound to procure.

'We have patiently suffered many delusions; but should we suffer our people to be so often spoiled without remedy? This is done by the Scots, whatsoever their words be. Should we suffer our rebels to be detained, contrary to the leagues? This is also done by them, whatsoever their words be. Should we suffer our land to be usurped, contrary to our most plain evidence? This is done by them, whatsoever their words be. Yet, in the intreating of this matter, if we had not evidently perceived the lack of such affection as proximity of blood should require, we would much rather have remitted these injuries of our nephew than we did heretofore the invasion of his father. But, considering we be so surely ascertained of the lack thereof, and that our blood is there frozen with the cold air of


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/544

524 Scotland, there was never prince more violently compelled to war than we be, by the unkind dealing, unjust behaviour, unprincely demeanour of him that in nature is our nephew, and in his acts and deeds declareth himself not to be moved therewith.

'The present war hath not proceeded of any demand of our right of superiority, which the kings of Scots have always knowledged by homage and fealty to our progenitors; but it hath been provoked and occasioned upon present matter of displeasure, present injury, present wrong. If we had minded the possession of Scotland, and by the motion of war to attain the same, there was never king of this realm had more opportunity in the minority of our nephew. Law and reason serveth that passing over of time is not allegeable in prescription for the loss of any right. For which cause, nevertheless, we do not enter this war, ne minded to demand any such matter, now being rather desirous to rejoice and take comfort in the friendship of our neighbour than to move matters unto him of displeasure. But such be the works of God, superior over all, to suffer occasions to be ministered whereby due superiority may be known, demanded, and required, to the intent that, according thereunto, all things governed in due order here, we may to His pleasure pass over this life to His honour and glory; which He grant us to do in such rest, peace, and tranquillity as shall be meet and convenient for us.'

A protracted invasion, so late in the season, was, for


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/117

 MACHLINIA, WILLIAM (fl. 1482–1490), printer, appears, as his name denotes, to have been a native of Mechlin in Belgium. It is uncertain when he first came to England or when he first began to print, but in 1482 he was in partnership with [q. v.] for some months at a printing-press near the church of All Saints in the city of London. There they printed the first edition of the 'Tenores Novelli,' by Sir [q. v.], and a few other works. From about 1483 to 1485 Machlinia was residing alone near the Fleet Bridge, where he printed ' Vulgaria Terencii,' Albertus Magnus's 'Liber Aggregationis' and 'Secreta Mulierum,' the 'Revelation to a Monke of Evesham,' 'Horæ ad usum Sarum,' and a few other books. From about 1485 he had a press in Holborn, where he printed 'The Chronicles of England;' Canutus 'On the Pestilence' (perhaps in consequence of that which raged in London in the first year of Henry VII)—of this he issued three editions; the ' Speculum Christian'; 'a few law books, and a bull of Innocent VIII (dated 2 March 1485-6), being a broadside relating to Henry VIIs title and marriage. About twenty-two books are allotted to Machlinia's press, some being only known by a few detached leaves: one edition of Canutus 'On the Pestilence,' printed by Machlinia, has a separate title-page, an innovation not known in England before 1491-2. Machlinia appears to have been succeeded as a printer by [q. v.]

 MACIAN. [See .]  M'IAN, ROBERT RONALD (1803–1856), painter of historical subjects, born in 1803, was descended from the old M'Ians or Maedonalds of Glencoe, Argyllshire. In his early years he was an actor, a member of the Bath and Bristol company; and on the London stage he attracted attention by his spirited representations of such highland characters as the Dougal Creature in the 'Twa Drovers' of Scott. Meanwhile he had been diligently training himself in art. In 1835 and 1837, while acting in the English Opera House, he exhibited in the Suffolk Street Gallery, and in 1836 he sent a landscape to the Royal Academy. In 1838 he was engaged at Covent Garden, and in 1839 at Drury Lane, but in the latter year he abandoned the stage, and devoted himself entirely to art, entering upon the pursuit with all the energy of a particularly enthusiastic temperament, and deriving the subjects of his figure-pictures from highland history and familiar life. In 1843 he produced 'The Battle of Culloden' and 'A Highland Feud,' and in the same year his 'Highland Cearnach defending a Pass' was exhibited in the Royal Academy. One of his most ambitious efforts, 'An Incident in the Revolutionary War of America' (the Fraser highlanders at Stone-ferry), was exhibited in the Royal Scottish Academy in 1854. The national character of his subjects rendered the engravings from his pictures very popular in the highlands, and his work on 'The Clans of the Scottish Highlands/ illustrated from his original sketches of costumes, arms, &c, published in 1845, was reissued in 1857. He was elected an associate of the Royal Scottish Academy in 1852, and died at Hampstead, 13 Dec. 1856. Milan's wife, Mrs. Fanny M'Ian, was long a teacher in the female school of design, Somerset House, London (see Macready, Reminiscences, vol. ii.) She exhibited works, of a similar character to those of her husband, in the Royal Academy, Royal Scottish Academy, and the British Institution. Her 'Highlander defending his Family at the Massacre of Glencoe' has been engraved.

 MACILWAIN, GEORGE (1797–1882), medical writer, born in 1797, was the son of an Irish country surgeon, who had been a pupil of (1764-1831) [q. v.] In 1814 he was likewise sent to study under Abernethy at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and was admitted a member of the Royal College of Surgeons on 4 Sept. 1818, being elected honorary fellow in 1843. For twenty years he was surgeon to the Finsbury Dispensary, and temporarily to the Fever Hospital, being appointed consulting surgeon on his retirement. He was also consulting surgeon to St. Anne's Society schools, and surgeon to the City of London Truss Society. In practice he was opposed to indiscriminate amputation and the use of violent purgatives. He was besides an uncompromising foe to vivisection. In 1871 he gave up his chambers in the Courtyard, Albany, Piccadilly, London, where he had resided since November 1853, and retired to Matching, near Harlow, Essex. He died at Matching on 22 Jan. 1882.

Macilwain was member of the Royal Institution, fellow and for some time vice-president of the Royal Medico-Chirurgical Society, and member of the Royal Irish Academy.

In 1853 Macilwain published rambling


text:
Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/545

1542.] many reasons, undesirable. No force large enough to penetrate into the country with safety could maintain itself more than a few days. The Borderers had been the chief offenders; and the campaign was to be a Border foray on a vast scale. On the 2ist of October Norfolk entered Scotland with twenty thousand men, and remained in the Lothians for nine days. The harvest had been newly gathered in: it was reduced to ashes. Farms, Tillages, towns, abbeys, went down in blazing ruins; and having fringed the Tweed with a black broad mourning rim of havoc, fifteen miles across and having thus inflicted a lesson which, for the present season at least would not be forgotten, he then withdrew. Fifteen thousand Scots hung upon his skirts, but would not venture an engagement; and he returned in insolent leisure to Berwick. Here, owing to a want of foresight in the commissariat department, he found the supplies inadequate to the maintenance of his followers, and with some misgiving lest the enemy might attempt a retaliation which, with reduced numbers, he might find a difficulty in preventing, he left in garrison for the winter a fifth only of his army, and, sending the rest to their homes, he rejoined the council at York.

In a despatch to Sir T. Wriothesley, on the 9th of November, he confessed his surprise at the Scottish inaction, and attributed it justly to disagreement among themselves, and want of ability in their leaders. A further conjecture, that 'the King