The Spirit of Justice is the single most important seed Piers planted; if you don’t live by its teaching, your chance of salvation is nil. Unless Conscience and the Cardinal Virtues form the food that people live on, just take my word for it, they’re utterly lost — every single living soul among them! [ Piers Plowman, A new translation by A.V.C. Schmidt . Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1992, page 239.]
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs. -- Oxford University Press, Edpress News
Lord Grenville never held office again, although he was requested to do so on several occasions. He continued, however, to take part in public life, being one of the chief supporters of Roman Catholic emancipation, and during the remaining years of his active political career, which ended in 1823, he generally voted with the Whigs, although in 1815 he separated himself from his colleague, Charles Grey, and supported the warlike policy of Lord Liverpool. In 1819, when the marquess of Lansdowne brought forward his motion for an inquiry into the causes of the distress and discontent in the manufacturing districts, Grenville delivered an alarmist speech advocating repressive measures. His concluding years were spent at Dropmore, Buckinghamshire, where he died on the 12th of January 1834. His wife, whom he married in 1792, was Anne (1772-1864), daughter of Thomas Pitt, 1st Baron Camelford, but he had no issue and his title became extinct. In 1809 he was elected chancellor of Oxford university. Entry: GRENVILLE
Dr Grace played his first great match in 1863, when, being only fifteen years of age, he scored 32 against the All-England Eleven and the bowling of Jackson, Tarrant and Tinley; but the scores which first made his name prominent were made in 1864, viz. 170 and 56 not out for the South Wales Club against the Gentlemen of Sussex. It was in 1865 that he first took an active part in first-class cricket, being then 6 ft. in height, and 11 stone in weight, and playing twice for the Gentlemen _v._ the Players, but his selection was mainly due to his bowling powers, the best exposition of which was his aggregate of 13 wickets for 84 runs for the Gentlemen of the South _v._ the Players of the South. His highest score was 400 not out, made in July 1876 against twenty-two of Grimsby; but on three occasions he was twice dismissed without scoring in matches against odds, a fate that never befell him in important cricket. In first-class matches his highest score was 344, made for the M.C.C. v. Kent at Canterbury, in August 1876; two days later he made 177 for Gloucestershire _v._ Notts, and two days after this 318 not out for Gloucestershire _v._ Yorkshire, the two last-named opposing counties being possessed of exceptionally strong bowling; thus in three consecutive innings Grace scored 839 runs, and was only got out twice. His 344 was the third highest individual score made in a big match in England up to the end of 1901. He also scored 301 for Gloucestershire _v._ Sussex at Bristol, in August 1896. He made over 200 runs on ten occasions, the most notable perhaps being in 1871, when he performed the feat twice, each time in benefit matches, and each time in the second innings, having been each time got out in the first over of the first innings. He scored over 100 runs on 121 occasions, the hundredth score being 288, made at Bristol for Gloucestershire _v._ Somersetshire in 1895. He made every figure from 0 to 100, on one occasion "closing" the innings when he had made 93, the only total he had never made between these limits. In 1871 he made ten "centuries," ranging from 268 to 116. In the matches between the Gentlemen and Players he scored "three figures" fifteen times, and at every place where these matches have been played. He made over 100 in each of his "first appearances" at Oxford and Cambridge. Three times he made over 100 in each innings of the same match, viz. at Canterbury, in 1868, for South v. North of the Thames, 130 and 102 not out; at Clifton, in 1887, for Gloucestershire _v._ Kent, 101 and 103 not out; and at Clifton, in 1888, for Gloucestershire _v._ Yorkshire, 148 and 153. In 1869, playing at the Oval for the Gentlemen of the South _v._ the Players of the South, Grace and B. B. Cooper put on 283 runs for the first wicket, Grace scoring 180 and Cooper 101. In 1886 Grace and Scotton put on 170 runs for the first wicket of England _v._ Australia; this occurred at the Oval in August, and Grace's total score was 170. In consecutive innings against the Players from 1871 to 1873 he scored 217, 77 and 112, 117, 163, 158 and 70. He only twice scored over 100 in a big match in Australia, nor did he ever make 200 at Lord's, his highest being 196 for the M.C.C. _v._ Cambridge University in 1894. His highest aggregates were 2739 (1871), 2622 (1876), 2346 (1895), 2139 (1873), 2135 (1896) and 2062 (1887). He scored three successive centuries in first-class cricket in 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874 and 1876. Playing against Kent at Gravesend in 1895, he was batting, bowling or fielding during the whole time the game was in progress, his scores being 257 and 73 not out. He scored over 1000 runs and took over 100 wickets in seven different seasons, viz. in 1874, 1665 runs and 129 wickets; in 1875, 1498 runs, 192 wickets; in 1876, 2622 runs, 124 wickets; in 1877, 1474 runs, 179 wickets; in 1878, 1151 runs, 153 wickets; in 1885, 1688 runs, 118 wickets; in 1886, 1846 runs, 122 wickets. He never captured 200 wickets in a season, his highest record being 192 in 1875. Playing against Oxford University in 1886, he took all the wickets in the first innings, at a cost of 49 runs. In 1895 he not only made his hundredth century, but actually scored 1000 runs in the month of May alone, his chief scores in that month being 103, 288, 256, 73 and 169, he being then forty-seven years old. He also made during that year scores of 125, 119, 118, 104 and 103 not out, his aggregate for the year being 2346 and his average 51; his innings of 118 was made against the Players (at Lord's), the chief bowlers being Richardson, Mold, Peel and Attewell; he scored level with his partner, A. E. Stoddart (his junior by fifteen years), the pair making 151 before a wicket fell, Grace making in all 118 out of 241. This may fairly be considered one of his most wonderful years. In 1898 the match between Gentlemen _v._ Players was, as a special compliment, arranged by the M.C.C. committee to take place on his birthday, and he celebrated the event by scoring 43 and 31 not out, though handicapped by lameness and an injured hand. In twenty-six different seasons he scored over 1000 runs, in three of these years being the only man to do so and five times being one out of two. Entry: GRACE
He was, however, debarred from high office by Clarendon's influence. Accordingly Buckingham's intrigues were now directed to effect the chancellor's ruin. He organized parties in both houses of parliament in support of the bill of 1666 prohibiting the import of Irish cattle, partly to oppose Clarendon and partly to thwart the duke of Ormonde. Having asserted during the debates that "whoever was against the bill had either an Irish interest or an Irish understanding," he was challenged by Lord Ossory. Buckingham avoided the encounter, and Ossory was sent to the Tower. A short time afterwards, during a conference between the two houses on the 19th of December, he came to blows with the marquess of Dorchester, pulling off the latter's periwig, while Dorchester at the close of the scuffle "had much of the duke's hair in his hand."[2] According to Clarendon no misdemeanour so flagrant had ever before offended the dignity of the House of Lords. The offending peers were both sent to the Tower, but were released after apologizing; and Buckingham vented his spite by raising a claim to the title of Lord Roos held by Dorchester's son-in-law. His opposition to the government had forfeited the king's favour, and he was now accused of treasonable intrigues, and of having cast the king's horoscope. His arrest was ordered on the 25th of February 1667, and he was dismissed from all his offices. He avoided capture till the 27th of June, when he gave himself up and was imprisoned in the Tower. He was released, however, by July 17th, was restored to favour and to his appointments on the 15 of September, and took an active part in the prosecution of Clarendon. On the latter's fall he became the chief minister, though holding no high office except that of master of the horse, bought from the duke of Albermarle in 1668. In 1671 he was elected chancellor of Cambridge, and in 1672 high steward of Oxford university. He favoured religious toleration, and earned the praise of Richard Baxter; he supported a scheme of comprehension in 1668, and advised the declaration of indulgence in 1672. He upheld the original jurisdiction of the Lords in Skinner's case. With these exceptions Buckingham's tenure of office was chiefly marked by scandals and intrigues. His illicit connexion with the countess of Shrewsbury led to a duel with her husband at Barn Elms on the 16th of January 1668, in which Shrewsbury was fatally wounded. The tale that the countess, disguised as a page, witnessed the encounter, appears to have no foundation; but Buckingham, by installing the "widow of his own creation" in his own and his wife's house, outraged even the lax opinion of that day. He was thought to have originated the project of obtaining the divorce of the childless queen. He intrigued against James, against Sir William Coventry--one of the ablest statesmen of the time, whose fall he procured by provoking him to send him a challenge--and against the great duke of Ormonde, who was dismissed in 1669. He was even suspected of having instigated Thomas Blood's attempt to kidnap and murder Ormonde, and was charged with the crime in the king's presence by Ormonde's son, Lord Ossory, who threatened to shoot him dead in the event of his father's meeting with a violent end. Arlington, next to Buckingham himself the most powerful member of the cabal and a favourite of the king, was a rival less easy to overcome; and he derived considerable influence from the control of foreign affairs entrusted to him. Buckingham had from the first been an adherent of the French alliance, while Arlington concluded through Sir William Temple in 1668 the Triple Alliance. But on the complete _volte-face_ and surrender made by Charles to France in 1670, Arlington as a Roman Catholic was entrusted with the first treaty of Dover of the 20th of May--which besides providing for the united attack on Holland, included Charles's undertaking to proclaim himself a Romanist and to reintroduce the Roman Catholic faith into England,--While Buckingham was sent to France to carry on the sham negotiations which led to the public treaties of the 31st of December 1670 and the 2nd of February 1672. He was much pleased with his reception by Louis XIV., declared that he had "more honours done him than ever were given to any subject," and was presented with a pension of 10,000 livres a year for Lady Shrewsbury. In June 1672 he accompanied Arlington to the Hague to impose terms on the prince of Orange, and with Arlington arranged the new treaty with Louis. After all this activity he suffered a keen disappointment in being passed over for the command of the English forces in favour of Schomberg. He now knew of the secret treaty of Dover, and towards the end of 1673 his jealousy of Arlington became open hostility. He threatened to impeach him, and endeavoured with the help of Louis to stir up a faction against him in parliament. This, however, was unsuccessful, and in January 1674 an attack was made upon Buckingham himself simultaneously in both houses. In the Lords the trustees of the young earl of Shrewsbury complained that Buckingham continued publicly his intimacy with the countess, and that a son of theirs had been buried in Westminster Abbey with the title of earl of Coventry; and Buckingham, after presenting an apology, was required, as was the countess, to give security for £10,000 not to cohabit together again. In the Commons he was attacked as the promoter of the French alliance, of "popery" and arbitrary government. He defended himself chiefly by endeavouring to throw the blame upon Arlington; but an address was voted petitioning the king to remove him from his councils, presence and from employment for ever. Charles, who had only been waiting for a favourable opportunity, and who was enraged at Buckingham's disclosures, consented with alacrity. Buckingham retired into private life, reformed his ways, attended church with his wife, began to pay his debts, became a "patriot," and was claimed by the country or opposition party as one of their leaders. In the spring of 1675 he was conspicuous for his opposition to the Test oath and for his abuse of the bishops, and on the 16th of November he introduced a bill for the relief of the nonconformists. On the 15th of February 1677 he was one of the four lords who endeavoured to embarrass the government by raising the question whether the parliament, not having assembled according to the act of Edward III. once in the year, had not been dissolved by [v.04 p.0671] the recent prorogation. The motion was rejected and the four lords were ordered to apologize. On their refusing, they were sent to the Tower, Buckingham in particular exasperating the House by ridiculing its censure. He was released in July, and immediately entered into intrigues with Barillon, the French ambassador, with the object of hindering the grant of supplies to the king; and in 1678 he visited Paris to get the assistance of Louis XIV. for the cause of the opposition. He took an active part in the prosecution of those implicated in the supposed Popish Plot, and accused the lord chief justice (Sir William Scroggs) in his own court while on circuit of favouring the Roman Catholics. In consequence of his conduct a writ was issued for his apprehension, but it was never served. He promoted the return of Whig candidates to parliament, constituted himself the champion of the dissenters, and was admitted a freeman of the city of London. He, however, separated himself from the Whigs on the exclusion question, probably on account of his dislike of Monmouth and Shaftesbury, was absent from the great debate in the Lords on the 15th of November 1680, and was restored to the king's favour in 1684. Entry: BUCKINGHAM
Lenthall now turned his attention to bring about the Restoration. He "very violently" opposed the oath abjuring the house of Stuart, now sought to be imposed by the republican faction on the parliament, and absented himself from the House for ten days, to avoid, it was said, any responsibility for the bill. He had been in communication with Monk for some time, and on Monk entering London with his army (3rd February 1660) Lenthall met him in front of Somerset House. On the 6th of February Monk visited the House of Commons, when Lenthall pronounced a speech of thanks. On the 28th of March Lenthall forwarded to the king a paper containing "Heads of Advice." According to Monk, he "was very active for the restoring of His Majesty and performed many services ... which could not have been soe well effected without his helpe." Lenthall notwithstanding found himself in disgrace at the Restoration. In spite of Monk's recommendation, he was not elected by Oxford University for the Convention Parliament, nor was he allowed by the king, though he had sent him a present of £3000, to remain master of the rolls. On the 11th of June he was included by the House of Commons, in spite of a recommendatory letter from Monk, among the twenty persons excepted from the act of indemnity and subject to penalties not extending to life. In the House of Lords, however, Monk's testimony and intercession were effectual, and Lenthall was only declared incapable of holding for the future any public office. His last public act was a disgraceful one. Unmindful now of the privileges of parliament, he consented to appear as a witness against the regicide Thomas Scot, for words spoken in the House of Commons while Lenthall was in the chair. It was probably after this that he was allowed to present himself at court, and his contemporaries took a malicious glee in telling how "when, with some difficulty, he obtained leave to kiss the king's hand he, out of guilt, fell backward, as he was kneeling." Entry: LENTHALL
CANTILUPE, THOMAS DE (c. 1218-1282), English saint and prelate, was a son of William de Cantilupe, the 2nd baron (d. 1251), one of King John's ministers, and a nephew of Walter de Cantilupe, bishop of Worcester. He was educated at Paris and Orleans, afterwards becoming a teacher of canon law at Oxford and chancellor of the university in 1262. During the Barons' War Thomas favoured Simon de Montfort and the baronial party. He represented the barons before St Louis of France at Amiens in 1264; he was made chancellor of England in February 1265, but was deprived of this office after Montfort's death at Evesham, and lived out of England for some time. Returning to England, he was again chancellor of Oxford University, lectured on theology, and held several ecclesiastical appointments. In 1274 he attended the second council of Lyons, and in 1275 he was appointed bishop of Hereford. Cantilupe was now a trusted adviser of Edward I.; he attended the royal councils, and even when differing from the king did not forfeit his favour. The archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Kilwardby, was also his friend; but after Kilwardby's death in 1279 a series of disputes arose between the bishop and the new archbishop, John Peckham, and this was probably the cause which drove Cantilupe to visit Italy. He died at Orvieto, on the 25th of August 1282, and he was canonized in 1330. Cantilupe appears to have been an exemplary bishop both in spiritual and secular affairs. His charities were large and his private life blameless; he was constantly visiting his diocese, correcting offenders and discharging other episcopal duties; and he compelled neighbouring landholders to restore estates which rightly belonged to the see of Hereford. In 1905 the Cantilupe Society was founded to publish the episcopal registers of Hereford, of which Cantilupe's is the first in existence. Entry: CANTILUPE
AYLESFORD, HENEAGE FINCH, 1st EARL OF (_c._ 1640-1719), 2nd son of Heneage Finch, 1st earl of Nottingham, was educated at Westminster school and at Christ Church, Oxford, where he matriculated on the 18th of November 1664. In 1673 he became a barrister of the Inner Temple; king's counsel and bencher in 1677; and in 1679, during the chancellorship of his father, was appointed solicitor-general, being returned to parliament for Oxford University, and in 1685 for Guildford. In 1682 he represented the crown in the attack upon the corporation of London, and next year in the prosecution of Lord Russell, when, according to Burnet, "and in several other trials afterwards, he showed more of a vicious eloquence in turning matters with some subtlety against the prisoners than of strict or sincere reasoning."[1] He does not, however, appear to have exceeded the duties of prosecutor for the crown as they were then understood. In 1684, in the trial of Algernon Sidney, he argued that the unpublished treatise of the accused was an overt act, and supported the opinion of Jeffreys that _scribere est agere_.[2] The same year he was counsel for James in his successful action against Titus Oates for libel, and in 1685 prosecuted Oates for the crown for perjury. Finch, however, though a Tory and a crown lawyer, was a staunch churchman, and on his refusal in 1686 to defend the royal dispensing power he was summarily dismissed by James, He was the leading counsel in June 1688 for the seven bishops, when he "strangely exposed and very boldly ran down"[3] the dispensing power, but his mistaken tactics were nearly the cause of his clients losing their case.[4] He sat again for Oxford University in the convention parliament, which constituency he represented in all the following assemblies except that of 1698, till his elevation to the peerage. He was, however, no supporter of the House of Orange, advocated a regency in James's name, and was one of the few who in the House of Commons opposed the famous vote that James had broken the contract between king and people and left the throne vacant. He held no office during William's reign, and is described by Macky as "always a great opposer" of the administration. In 1689 he joined in voting for the reversal of Lord Russell's attainder, and endeavoured to defend his conduct in the trial, but was refused a hearing by the House. He opposed the Triennial Bill of 1692, but in 1696 spoke against the bill of association and test, which was voted for the king's protection, on the ground that though William was to be obeyed as sovereign he could not be acknowledged "rightful and lawful king." In 1694 he argued against the crown in the bankers' case. In 1703 he was created baron of Guernsey and a privy councillor, and after the accession of George I. on the 19th of October 1714, earl of Aylesford, being reappointed a privy councillor and made chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, which office he retained till February 1716. He died on the 22nd of July 1719. According to John Macky (_Memoirs_, p. 71; published by Roxburghe Club, 1895) he was accounted "one of the greatest orators in England and a good common lawyer; a firm asserter of the prerogative of the crown and jurisdiction of the church; a tall, thin, black man, splenatick." He married Elizabeth, daughter and co-heiress of Sir John Banks of Aylesford, by whom, besides six daughters, he had three sons, of whom the eldest, Heneage, succeeded him as 2nd earl of Aylesford. The 2nd earl died in 1757, and since this date the earldom has been held by his direct descendants, six of whom in succession have borne the Christian name of Heneage. Entry: AYLESFORD
Professor of Church History in Rawdon College, Leeds. Senior Kennicott Scholar, Oxford University, 1901. Author of _Hebrew Psychology in Relation to Pauline Anthropology_ (in _Mansfield College Essays_); &c. Entry: H
Reader in Egyptology, Oxford University. Editor of the Archaeological Survey and Archaeological Reports of the Egypt Exploration Fund. Fellow of Imperial German Archaeological Institute. Entry: F
MASON, SIR JOHN (1503-1566), English diplomatist, was born of humble parentage at Abingdon in 1503, and was educated at Oxford, where he became Fellow of All Souls in 1521. He was ordained before 1531. Most of his early years were spent on the Continent, where he witnessed the meeting between Henry VIII. and Francis I. at Calais in 1532, and where he was employed in collecting information for the English government, gaining in this work the reputation of a capable diplomatist. By his never-failing caution, moderation and pliancy, Mason succeeded in keeping himself in favour with four successive sovereigns of the Tudor monarchy. In 1537 he became secretary to the English ambassador at Madrid, Sir Thomas Wyat; but when the latter was put on his trial for treason in 1541 Mason was unmolested, and soon afterwards was appointed clerk of the privy council, and procured for himself sundry other posts and privileges. Mason was knighted and made dean of Winchester by Edward VI. He was one of the commissioners to negotiate the treaty by which Boulogne was restored to France in 1550, and in the same year he became English ambassador in Paris, where he helped to arrange the bethrothal of Edward VI. to the princess Elizabeth of France. He returned to England at the end of 1551, became clerk of parliament, received extensive grants of land, and in 1552 was made chancellor of Oxford University. He was elected member of parliament in the same year. On the death of Edward VI., he at first joined the party of Northumberland and the Lady Jane Grey; but quickly perceiving his mistake he took an active part in procuring the proclamation of Mary as queen. Mason now received fresh tokens of royal favour, being confirmed in all his secular, though not in his ecclesiastical, offices; and in 1553 he was appointed English ambassador at the court of the emperor Charles V., of whose abdication at Brussels in October 1555 he wrote a vivid account. He took a prominent share in the administrative business of the government in the first years of Elizabeth's reign, and largely influenced her foreign policy until his death, which occurred on the 20th of April 1566. Sir John Mason married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Thomas Isley of Sundridge, Kent, and widow of Richard Hill. He had no children, and his heir was Anthony Wyckes, whom he had adopted, and who assumed the name of Mason and left a large family. Entry: MASON