and truth, and refinement in taste and feeling. He wrote other books, mostly on the same period, but his great history is that by which his name will live. It is a worthy result of a life of unremitting labour, a splendid monument of historical scholarship. His position as an historian was formally acknowledged: in 1862 he was given a civil list pension of £150 per annum, “in recognition of his valuable contributions to the history of England"; he was honorary D.C.L. of Oxford, LL.D. of Edinburgh, and Ph.D. of Göttingen, and honorary student of Christ Church, Oxford; and in 1894 he declined the appointment of regius professor of modern history at Oxford, lest its duties should interfere with the accomplishment of his history. He died on the 24th of February 1902.

Among the more noteworthy of Gardiner's separate works are: Prince Charles and the Spanish Marriage (2 vols., London, 1869); Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, 1625-1660 (1st ed., Oxford, 1889; 2nd ed., Oxford, 1899); Oliver Cromwell (London, 1901); What Gunpowder Plot was (London, 1897): Outline of English History (1st ed., London, 1887; 2nd ed., London, 1896); and Student's History of England (2 vols., 1st ed., London, 18901891; 2nd ed., London, 1891-1892). He edited collections of papers for the Camden Society, and from 1891 was editor of the English Historical Review. (W. Hu.)

GARDINER, SAMUEL RAWSON (1829-1902), English | beauties, for it is marked by loftiness of thought, a love of purity historian, son of Rawson Boddam Gardiner, was born near Alresford, Hants, on the 4th of March 1829. He was educated at Winchester and Christ Church, Oxford, where he obtained a first class in literae humaniores. He was subsequently elected to fellowships at All Souls (1884) and Merton (1892). For some years he was professor of modern history at King's College, London, and devoted his life to historical work. He is the historian of the Puritan revolution, and has written its history in a series of volumes, originally published under different titles, beginning with the accession of James I.; the seventeenth (the third volume of the History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate) appeared in 1901. This was completed in two volumes by C. H. Firth as The Last Years of the Protectorate (1909). The series is History of England from the Accession of James I. to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603-1642 (10 vols.); History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649 (4 vols.); and History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649-1660. His treatment is exhaustive and philosophical, taking in, along with political and constitutional history, the changes in religion, thought and sentiment during his period, their causes and their tendencies. Of the original authorities on which his work is founded many of great value exist only in manuscript, and his researches in public and private collections of manuscripts at home, and in the archives of Simancas, Venice, Rome, Brussels and Paris, were indefatigable and fruitful. His accuracy is universally acknowledged. He was perhaps drawn to the Puritan period by the fact of his descent from Cromwell and Ireton, but he has certainly written of it with no other purpose than to set forth the truth. In his judgments of men and their actions he is unbiassed, and his appreciations of character exhibit a remarkable fineness of perception and a broad sympathy. Among many proofs of these qualities it will be enough to refer to what he says of the characters of James I., Bacon, Laud, Strafford and Cromwell. On constitutional matters he writes with an insight to be attained only by the study of political philosophy, discussing in a masterly fashion the dreams of idealists and the schemes of government proposed by statesmen. Throughout his work he gives a prominent place to everything which illustrates human progress in moral and religious, as well as political conceptions, and specially to the rise and development of the idea of religious toleration, finding his authorities not only in the words and actions of men of mark, but in the writings of more or less obscure pamphleteers, whose essays indicate currents in the tide of public opinion. His record of the relations between England and other states proves his thorough knowledge of contemporary European history, and is rendered specially valuable by his researches among manuscript sources which have enabled him to expound for the first time some intricate pieces of diplomacy.

Gardiner's work is long and minute; the fifty-seven years which it covers are a period of exceptional importance in many directions, and the actions and characters of the principal persons in it demand careful analysis. He is perhaps apt to attach an exaggerated importance to some of the authorities which he was the first to bring to light, to see a general tendency in what may only be the expression of an individual eccentricity, to rely too much on ambassadors' reports which may have been written for some special end, to enter too fully into the details of diplomatic correspondence. In any case the length of his work is not the result of verbiage or repetitions. His style is clear, absolutely unadorned, and somewhat lacking in force; he appeals constantly to the intellect rather than to the emotions, and is seldom picturesque, though in describing a few famous scenes, such as the execution of Charles I., he writes with pathos and dignity. The minuteness of his narrative detracts from its interest; though his arrangement is generally good, here and there the reader finds the thread of a subject broken by the intrusion of incidents not immediately connected with it, and does not pick it up again without an effort. And Gardiner has the defects of his supreme qualities, of his fairness and critical ability as a judge of character; his work lacks enthusiasm, and leaves the reader cold and unmoved. Yet, apart from its sterling excellence, it is not without

GARDINER, STEPHEN (c. 1493-1555), English bishop and lord chancellor, was a native of Bury St Edmunds. The date of his birth as commonly given, 1483, seems to be about ten years too early, and surmises which have passed current that he was some one's illegitimate child are of no authority. His father is now known to have been John Gardiner, a substantial cloth merchant of the town where he was born (see his will, printed in Proceedings of the Suffolk Archaeological Institute, 1. 329), who took care to give him a good education. In 1511 he, being then a lad, met Erasmus at Paris (Nichols's Epistles of Erasmus, ii. 12, 13). But he had probably already been to Cambridge, where he studied at Trinity Hall and greatly distinguished himself in the classics, especially in Greek. He afterwards devoted himself to the canon and civil law, in which subjects he attained so great a proficiency that no one could dispute his pre-eminence. He received the degree of doctor of civil law in 1520, and of canon law in the following year.

Ere long his abilities attracted the notice of Cardinal Wolsey, who made him his secretary, and in this capacity he is said to have been with him at More Park in Hertfordshire, when the conclusion of the celebrated treaty of the More brought Henry VIII. and the French ambassadors thither. It is stated, and with great probability, that this was the occasion on which he was first introduced to the king's notice, but he does not appear to have been actively engaged in Henry's service till three years later. In that of Wolsey be undoubtedly acquired a very intimate knowledge of foreign politics, and in 1527 he and Sir Thomas More were named commissioners on the part of England in arranging a treaty with the French ambassadors for the support of an army in Italy against the emperor. That year he accompanied Wolsey on his important diplomatic mission to France, the splendour and magnificence of which are so graphically described by Cavendish. Among the imposing train who went with the cardinal-including, as it did, several noblemen and privy councillors-Gardiner alone seems to have been acquainted with the real heart of the matter which made this embassy a thing of such peculiar moment. Henry was then particularly anxious to cement his alliance with Francis I., and gain his co-operation as far as possible in the object on which he had secretly set his heart-a divorce from Catherine of Aragon. In the course of his progress through France he received orders from Henry to send back his secretary Gardiner, or, as he was called at court, Master Stevens, for fresh instructions; to which he was obliged to reply that he positively could not spare him as he was the only instrument he had in advancing the king's "secret matter." Next year Gardiner, still in the service of Wolsey, was sent by him to Italy along with Edward Fox, provost of King's College, Cambridge, to promote the same business with the pope. His despatches on this occasion are still extant, and whatever we may think of the cause on which he was engaged, they certainly give a wonderful impression of the

zeal and ability with which he discharged his functions. Here his
perfect familiarity with the canon law gave him a great advantage.
He was instructed to procure from the pope a decretal com-
mission, laying down principles of law by which Wolsey and
Campeggio might hear and determine the cause without appeal.
The demand, though supported by plausible pretexts, was not
only unusual but clearly inadmissible. Clement VII. was then at
Orvieto, and had just recently escaped from captivity at St
Angelo at the hands of the imperialists. But fear of offending
the emperor could not have induced him to refuse a really
legitimate request from a king like Henry. He naturally referred
the question to the cardinals about him; with whom Gardiner
held long arguments, enforced, it would seem, by not a little
browbeating of the College. What was to be thought, he said, of
a spiritual guide, who either could not or would not show the
wanderer his way? The king and lords of England would be
driven to think that God had taken away from the Holy See the
key of knowledge, and that pontifical laws which were not clear
to the pope himself might as well be committed to the flames.
This ingenious pleading, however, did not serve, and he was
obliged to be content with a general commission for Campeggio
and Wolsey to try the cause in England. This, as Wolsey saw,
was quite inadequate for the purpose in view; and he again
instructed Gardiner, while thanking the pope for the commission
actually granted, to press him once more by very urgent pleas,
to send the desired decretal on, even if the latter was only to be
shown to the king and himself and then destroyed. Otherwise,
he wrote, he would lose his credit with the king, who might even
be tempted to throw off his allegiance to Rome altogether. At
last the pope to his own bitter regret afterwards-gave what
was desired on the express conditions named, that Campeggio
was to show it to the king and Wolsey and no one else, and then
destroy it, the two legates holding their court under the general
commission. After obtaining this Gardiner returned home;
but early in the following year, 1529, when proceedings were
delayed on information of the brief in Spain, he was sent once
more to Rome.
This time, however, his efforts were unavailing.
The pope would make no further concessions, and would not
even promise not to revoke the cause to Rome, as he did very
shortly after.

Francis I. took place in September, of which event Henry stood in great suspicion, as Francis was ostensibly his most cordial ally, and had hitherto maintained the justice of his cause in the matter of the divorce. It was at this interview that Bonner intimated the appeal of Henry VIII. to a general council in case the pope should venture to proceed to sentence against him. This appeal, and also one on behalf of Cranmer presented with it, were of Gardiner's drawing up. In 1535 he and other bishops were called upon to vindicate the king's new title of "Supreme Head of the Church of England." The result was his celebrated treatise De vera obedientia, the ablest, certainly, of all the vindications of royal supremacy. In the same year he had an unpleasant dispute with Cranmer about the visitation of his diocese. He was also employed to answer the pope's brief threatening to deprive Henry of his kingdom.

During the next few years he was engaged in various embassies in France and Germany. He was indeed so much abroad that he had little influence upon the king's councils. But in 1539 he took part in the enactment of the severe statute of the Six Articles, which led to the resignation of Bishops Latimer and Shaxton and the persecution of the Protestant party. In 1540, on the death of Cromwell, carl of Essex, he was elected chancellor of the university of Cambridge. A few years later he attempted, in concert with others, to fasten a charge of heresy upon Archbishop Cranmer in connexion with the Act of the Six Articles; and but for the personal intervention of the king he would probably have succeeded. He was, in fact, though he had supported the royal supremacy, a thorough opponent of the Reformation in a doctrinal point of view, and it was suspected that he even repented his advocacy of the royal supremacy. He certainly had not approved of Henry's general treatment of the church, especially during the ascendancy of Cromwell, and he was frequently visited with storms of royal indignation, which he schooled himself to bear with patience. In 1544 a relation of his own, named German Gardiner, whom he employed as his secretary, was put to death for treason in reference to the king's supremacy, and his enemies insinuated to the king that he himself was of his secretary's way of thinking. But in truth the king had need of him quite as much as he had of Cranmer; for it was Gardiner, who even under royal supremacy, was anxious to prove that England had not fallen away from the faith, while Cranmer's authority as primate was necessary to upholding that supremacy. Thus Gardiner and the archbishop maintained opposite sides of the king's church policy; and though Gardiner was encouraged by the king to put up articles against the archbishop himself for heresy, the archbishop could always rely on the king's protection in the end. Heresy was gaining ground in high places, especially after the king's marriage with Catherine Parr; and there seems to be some truth in the story that the queen herself was nearly committed for it at one time, when Gardiner, with the king's approbation, censured some of her expressions in conversation. In fact, just after her marriage, four men of the Court were condemned at Windsor and three of them were burned. The fourth, who was the musician Marbeck, was

Gardiner's services, however, were fully appreciated. He was appointed the king's secretary. He had been already some years archdeacon of Taunton, and the archdeaconry of Norfolk was added to it in March 1529, which two years later he resigned for that of Leicester. In 1530 he was sent to Cambridge to procure the decision of the university as to the unlawfulness of marriage with a deceased brother's wife, in accordance with the new plan devised for settling the question without the pope s intervention. In this he succeeded, though not without a good deal of artifice, more creditable to his ingenuity than to his virtue. In November 1531 the king rewarded him for his services with the bishopric of Winchester, vacant by Wolsey's death. The promotion was unexpected, and was accompanied by expressions from the king which made it still more honourable, as showing that if he had been in some things too subservient, it was from no abject, self-pardoned by Gardiner's procurement. seeking policy of his own. Gardiner had, in fact, ere this remonstrated boldly with his sovereign on some points, and Henry now reminded him of the fact. "I have often squared with you, Gardiner," he said familiarly, "but I love you never the worse, as the bishopric I give will convince you." In 1532, nevertheless, he excited some displeasure in the king by the part he took in the preparation of the famous "Answer of the Ordinaries" to the complaints brought against them in the House of Commons. On this subject he wrote a very manly letter to the king in his own defence.

ور

His next important action was not so creditable; for he was, not exactly, as is often said, one of Cranmer's assessors, but, according to Cranmer's own expression," assistant to him as counsel for the king, when the archbishop, in the absence of Queen Catherine, pronounced her marriage with Henry null and void on the 23rd of May 1533. Immediately afterwards he was sent over to Marseilles, where an interview between the pope and

Great as Gardiner's influence had been with Henry VIII., his name was omitted at the last in the king's will, though Henry was believed to have intended making him one of his executors. Under Edward VI. he was completely opposed to the policy of the dominant party both in ecclesiastical and in civil matters. The religious changes he objected to both on principle and on the ground of their being moved during the king's minority, and he resisted Cranmer's project of a general visitation. His remonstrances, however, were met by his own committal to the Fleet, and the visitation of his diocese was held during his imprisonment. Though soon afterwards released, it was not long before he was called before the council, and, refusing to give them satisfaction on some points, was thrown into the Tower, where he continued during the whole remainder of the reign, a period slightly over five years. During this time he in vain demanded his liberty, and to be called before parliament as a peer of the realm. His bishopric was taken from him and given to Dr

Perhaps no celebrated character of that age has been the subject of so much ill merited abuse at the hands of popular historians. That his virtue was not equal to every trial must be admitted, but that he was anything like the morose and narrow-Greek History (1892), an account of excavations in Greece and minded bigot. he is commonly represented there is nothing whatever to show. He has been called ambitious, turbulent, crafty, abject, vindictive, bloodthirsty and a good many other things besides, not quite in keeping with each other; in addition to which it is roundly asserted by Bishop Burnet that he was despised alike by Henry and by Mary, both of whom made use of him as a tool. How such a mean and abject character submitted to remain five years in prison rather than change his principles is not very clearly explained; and as to his being despised, we have seen already that neither Henry nor Mary considered him by any means despicable. The truth is, there is not a single divine or statesman of that day whose course throughout was so thoroughly consistent. He was no friend to the Reformation, it is true, but he was at least a conscientious opponent. In doctrine he adhered to the old faith from first to last, while as a question of church policy, the only matter for consideration with him was whether the new laws and ordinances were constitutionally justifiable.

Orkneys, we know that George Low, who died in 1795, says in his posthumously-published Fauna Orcadensis that he could not find it was ever seen there; and on Bullock's visit in 1812 he was told, says Montagu (Orn. Dict. App.), that one male only had made its appearance for a long time. This bird he saw and unsuccessfully hunted, but it was killed soon after his departure, while its mate had been killed just before his arrival, and none have been seen there since. As to the Hebrides, St Kilda is the only locality recorded for it, and the last example known to have been obtained there, or in its neighbourhood, was that given to Fleming (Edinb. Phil. Journ. x. p. 96) in 1821 or 1822, having been some time before captured by Mr Maclellan of Glass. That the gare-fowl was not plentiful in either group of islands is sufficiently obvious, as also is the impossibility of its continuing to breed "up to the year 1830."

But mistakes like these are not confined to British authors. As on the death of an ancient hero myths gathered round his memory as quickly as clouds round the setting sun, so have stories, probable as well as impossible, accumulated over the true history of this species, and it behoves the conscientious naturalist to exercise more than common caution in sifting the truth from the large mass of error. Americans have asserted that the specimen which belonged to Audubon (now at Vassar College) was obtained by him on the banks of Newfoundland, though there is Macgillivray's distinct statement (Bril. Birds, v. p. 359) that Audubon procured it in London. The account given by Degland (Orn. Europ. ii. p. 529) in 1849, and repeated in the last edition of his work by M. Gerbe, of its extinction in Orkney, is so manifestly absurd that it deserves to be quoted in full: "Il se trouvait en assez grand nombre il y a une quinzaine d'années aux Orcades; mais le ministre presbytérien dans le Mainland, en offrant une forte prime aux personnes qui lui apportaient cet oiseau, a été cause de sa destruction sur ces îles." The same author claims the species as a visitor to the shores of France on the testimony of Hardy (Annuaire normand, 1841, p. 298), which he grievously misquotes both in his own work and in another place (Naumannia, 1855, p. 423), thereby misleading an anonymous English writer (Nat. Hist. Rev., 1865, p. 475) and numerous German readers.

John Milne in 1875 visited Funk Island, one of the former resorts of the gare-fowl, or "penguin," as it was there called, in the Newfoundland seas, a place where bones had before been obtained by Stuvitz, and natural mummies so lately as 1863 and 1864. Landing on this rock at the risk of his life, he brought off a rich cargo of its remains, belonging to no fewer than fifty birds, some of them in size exceeding any that had before been known. His collection was subsequently dispersed, most of the specimens finding their way into various public museums.

|

of such labour as fell to the lot of every farmer's son in the new states, and in the acquisition of such education as could be had in the district schools held for a few weeks each winter. But life on a farm was not to his liking, and at sixteen he left home and set off to make a living in some other way. A book of stories of adventure on the sea, which he read over and over again when a boy, had filled him with a longing for a seafaring life. He decided, therefore, to become a sailor, and, in 1848, tramping across the country to Cleveland, Ohio, he sought employment | from the captain of a lake schooner. But the captain drove him from the deck, and, wandering on in search of work, he fell in with a canal boatman who engaged him. During some months young Garfield served as bowsman, deck-hand and driver of a canal boat. An attack of the ague sent him home, and on recovery, having resolved to attend a high school and fit himself to become a teacher, he passed the next four years in a hard struggle with poverty and in an earnest effort to secure an education, studying for a short time in the Geauga Seminary at Chester, Ohio. He worked as a teacher, a carpenter and a farmer; studied for a time at the Western Reserve Eclectic Institute at Hiram, Ohio, which afterward became Hiram College, and finally entered Williams College. On graduation, in 1856, Garfield became professor of ancient languages and literature in the Eclectic Institute at Hiram, and within a year had risen to the presidency of the institution.

Soon afterwards he entered political life. In the early days of the Republican party, when the shameful scenes of the Kansas struggle were exciting the whole country, and during the campaigns of 1857 and 1858, he became known as an effective speaker and ardent anti-slavery man. His reward for his services was election in 1859 to the Ohio Senate as the member from Portage and Summit counties. When the cotton states seceded, Garfield appeared as a warm supporter of vigorous measures. He was one of the six Ohio senators who voted against the proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution (Feb. 28th, 1861) forbidding any constitutional amendment which should give Congress the power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any state; he upheld the right of the government to coerce seceded states; defended the "Million War Bill" appropriating a million dollars for the state's military expenses; and when the call came for 75,000 troops, he moved that Ohio furnish 20,000 soldiers and three millions of dollars as her share. He had just been admitted to the bar, but on the outbreak of war he at once offered his services to the governor, and became lieutenant-colonel and then colonel of the 42nd Ohio Volunteers, recruited largely from among his former students. He served in Kentucky, was promoted to the rank of brigadier-general of volunteers early in 1862; took part in the second day's fighting at the battle of Shiloh, served as chief of staff under Rosecrans in the Army of the Cumberland in 1863, fought at Chickamauga, and was made a major-general of volunteers for gallantry in that battle. In 1862 he was elected a member of Congress from the Ashtabula district of Ohio, and, resigning his military commission, took his seat in the House of Representatives in December 1863. In Congress he joined the radical wing of the Republican party, advocated the confiscation of Confederate property, approved and defended the Wade-Davis manifesto denouncing the tameness of Lincoln, and was soon recognized as a hard worker and ready speaker. Capacity for work brought him places on important committees he was chairman successively of the committee on military affairs, the committee on banking and currency, and the committee on appropriations,and his ability as a speaker enabled him to achieve distinction on the floor of the House and to rise to leadership. Between 1863 and 1873 Garfield delivered speeches of importance on "The Constitutional Amendment to abolish Slavery," Freedman's Bureau," "The Reconstruction of the Rebel States," The Public Debt and Specie Payments," "Reconstruction," GARFIELD, JAMES ABRAM (1831-1881), twentieth president" The Currency," "" Taxation of United States Bonds,' ""Enforcof the United States, was born on the 19th of November 1831 ing the 14th Amendment," "National Aid to Education," in a log cabin in the little frontier town of Orange, Cuyahoga and "the Right to Originate Revenue Bills." The year 1874 county, Ohio His early years were spent in the performance was one of disaster to the Republican party. The greenback

"

A literature by no means inconsiderable has grown up respecting the gare-fowl. Neglecting works of general bearing, few of which are without many inaccuracies, the following treatises may be especially mentioned:-J. J. S. Steenstrup, "Et Bidrag til Geirfuglens Naturhistorie og sacrligt til Kundskaben om dens tidligere Udbredningskreds," Naturh. Foren. Vidensk. Meddelelser (Copenhagen, 1855), p. 33: E. Charlton, "On the Great Auk," Trans. Tyneside Nat. Field Club, iv. p. 111: "Abstract of Mr J. Wolley's Researches in Iceland respecting the Gare-fowl," Ibis (1861), p. 374; W Preyer," Über Plautus impennis," Journ. für Orn. (1862), pp. 110, 337); K. E. von Baer, "Über das Aussterben der Tierarten in physiologischer und nicht physiologischer Hinsicht," Bull. de Acad. Imp. de St-Pétersb. vi. p. 513; R. Owen, Description of the Skeleton of the Great Auk," Trans. Zool. Soc. v. p. 317; The Gare-fowl and its Historians," Nat. Hist. Rev. v. p. 467: J. H. Gurney, jun., "On the Great Auk," Zoologist (2nd ser.), pp. 1442, 1639: H. Reeks, "Great Auk in Newfoundland," &c., op. cit. p. 1854: V. Fatio, "Sur l'Alca impennis," Bull. Soc. Orn. Suisse, ii. pp. 1, 80, 147: "On existing Remains of the Gare-fowl," Ibis (1870), p. 256; J. Milne," Relics of the Great Auk," Field (27th of March, 3rd and 10th of April 1875). Lastly, reference cannot be omitted to the happy exercise of poetic fancy with which Charles Kingsley was enabled to introduce the chief facts of the gare-fowl's extinction (derived from one of the above-named papers) into his charming Water Babies. (A. N.)

"The