Chapter 12

See Thomas Moore,Life and Death of Lord Edward Fitzgerald(2 vols., London, 1832), also a revised edition entitledThe Memoirs of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, edited with supplementary particulars by Martin MacDermott (London, 1897); R.R. Madden,The United Irishmen(7 vols., Dublin, 1842-1846); C.H. Teeling,Personal Narrative of the Irish Rebellion of 1798(Belfast, 1832); W.J. Fitzpatrick,The Sham Squire, The Rebellion of Ireland and the Informers of 1798(Dublin, 1866), andSecret Service under Pitt(London, 1892); J.A. Froude,The English in Ireland in the Eighteenth Century(3 vols., London, 1872-1874); W.E.H. Lecky,History of England in the Eighteenth Century, vols. vii. and viii. (London, 1896); Thomas Reynolds the younger,The Life of Thomas Reynolds(London, 1839);The Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox, edited by the countess of Ilchester and Lord Stavordale (London, 1901); Ida A. Taylor,The Life of Lord Edward Fitzgerald(London, 1903), which gives a prejudiced and distorted picture of Pamela. For particulars of Pamela, and especially as to the question of her parentage, see Gerald Campbell,Edward and Pamela Fitzgerald(London, 1904);Memoirs of Madame de Genlis(London, 1825); Georgette Ducrest,Chroniques populaires(Paris, 1855); Thomas Moore,Memoirs of the Life of R.B. Sheridan(London, 1825).

(R. J. M.)

FITZGERALD, RAYMOND,orRedmond(d.ca.1182), surnamed Le Gros, was the son of William Fitzgerald and brother of Odo de Carew. He was sent by Strongbow to Ireland in 1170, and landed at Dundunnolf, near Waterford, where he was besieged in his entrenchments by the combined Irish and Ostmen, whom he repulsed. He was Strongbow’s second in command, and had the chief share in the capture of Waterford and in the successful assault on Dublin. He was sent to Aquitaine to hand over Strongbow’s conquests to Henry II., but was back in Dublin in July 1171, when he led one of the sallies from the town. Strongbow offended him later by refusing him the marriage of his sister Basilea, widow of Robert de Quenci, constable of Leinster. Raymond then retired to Wales, and Hervey de Mountmaurice became constable in his place. At the outbreak of a general rebellion against the earl in 1174 Raymond returned with his uncle Meiler Fitz Henry, after receiving a promise of marriage with Basilea. Reinstated as constable he secured a series of successes, and with the fall of Limerick in October 1175 order was restored. Mountmaurice meanwhile obtained Raymond’s recall on the ground that his power threatened the royal authority, but the constable was delayed by a fresh outbreak at Limerick, the earl’s troops refusing to march without him. On the death of Strongbow he was acting governor until the arrival of William Fitz Aldhelm, to whom he handed over the royal fortresses. He was deprived of his estates near Dublin and Wexford, but the Geraldines secured the recall of Fitz Aldhelm early in 1183, and regained their power and influence. In 1182 he relieved his uncle Robert Fitzstephen, who was besieged in Cork. The date of his death, sometimes stated to be 1182, is not known.

FITZGERALD, LORD THOMAS(10th earl of Kildare), (1513-1537), the eldest son of Gerald Fitzgerald, 9th earl of Kildare, was born in London in 1513. He spent much of his youth in England, but in 1534 when his father was for the third time summoned to England to answer for his maladministration as lord deputy of Ireland, Thomas, at the council held at Drogheda, in February was made vice-deputy. In June the Ormond faction spread a report in Ireland that the earl had been executed in the Tower, and that his son’s life was to be attempted. Inflamed with rage at this apparent treachery, Thomas rode at the head of his retainers1into Dublin, and before the council for Ireland (the 11th of June 1534) formally renounced his allegiance to the king and proclaimed a rebellion. His enemies, including Archbishop John Allen (of Dublin), who had been set by Henry VIII. to watch Fitzgerald, took refuge in Dublin Castle. In attempting to escape to England, Allen was taken by the rebels, and on the 28th of July 1534, was murdered by Fitzgerald’s servants in his presence, but whether actually by his orders is uncertain. In any case he sent to the pope for absolution, but was solemnly excommunicated by the Irish Church. Leaving part of his army (with the consent of the citizens) to besiege Dublin Castle, Fitzgerald himself went against Piers Butler, earl of Ossory, and succeeded at first in making a truce with him. But the citizens of Dublin now rose against him, Ossory invaded Kildare, and the approach of an English army forced Fitzgerald to raise the siege. Part of the English army landed on the 17th of October, the rest a week later, but taking advantage of the inactivity of the new lord deputy, Sir William Skeffington, Fitzgerald from his stronghold at Maynooth ravaged Kildare and Meath throughout the winter. He had now succeeded to the earldom of Kildare, his father having died in the Tower on the 13th of December 1534, but he does not seem to have been known by that title. In March Skeffington stormed the castle, the stronghold of the Geraldines, which was defended, and some said betrayed, by Christopher Parese, Fitzgerald’s foster-brother. It fell on the 23rd of March 1535, and most of the garrison were put to the sword. This proved the final blow to the rebellion. The news of what is known as the “pardon of Maynooth” reached Fitzgerald as he was returning from levying fresh troops in Offaley; his men fell away from him, and he retreated to Thomond, intending to sail for Spain. Changing his mind he spent the next few months in raids against the English and their allies, but his party gradually deserting him, on the 18th of August 1535 he surrendered himself to Lord Leonard Grey (d. 1541). It seems likely that he made some conditions, but what they were is very uncertain. He was taken to England and placed in the Tower. In February 1536 his five uncles were also, some of them with great injustice, seized and brought to England. The six Geraldines were hanged at Tyburn on the 3rd of February 1537. Acts of attainder against them and Gerald the 9th earl were passed by both theIrish and English parliaments; but the family estates were restored by Edward VI. to Gerald, 11th earl of Kildare (stepbrother of Thomas), and the attainder was repealed by Queen Elizabeth. Lord Thomas Fitzgerald married Frances, youngest daughter of Sir Adrian Fortescue, but had no children.

Bibliography.—Richard Stanihurst,Chronicles of Ireland(vol. ii. ofHolinshed’s Chronicles); Sir James Ware,Rerum Hibernicarum annales(Dublin, 1664);The Earls of Kildare, by C.W. Fitzgerald, duke of Leinster (3rd ed., 1858); Richard Bagwell,Ireland under the Tudors(3 vols., 1885, vol. i. passim);Calendar State Papers, Hen. VIII., Irish; G. E. C.’sPeerage; John Lodge,Peerage of Ireland, ed. M. Archdall (1789), vol. i.

1Fitzgerald was known by the sobriquet of “Silken Thomas,” either from the silken fringes on his helmet, or from his distinguished manners.

FITZHERBERT, SIR ANTHONY(1470-1538), English jurist, was born at Norbury, Derbyshire. After studying at Oxford, he was called to the English bar, and in 1523 became justice of the Court of Common Pleas, the duties of which office he continued to discharge till within a short time of his death in 1538. As a judge he left behind him a high reputation for fairness and integrity, and his legal learning is sufficiently attested by his published works.

He is the author ofLa Graunde Abridgement, a digest of important legal cases written in Old French, first printed in 1514;The Office and Authority of Justices of the Peace, first printed in 1538 (last ed. 1794); theNew Natura Brevium(1534, last ed. 1794), with a commentary ascribed to Sir Matthew Hale. To Fitzherbert are sometimes attributed theBook of Husbandry(1523), the first published work on agriculture in the English language, and theBook of Surveying and Improvements(1523) (seeAgriculture).

FITZHERBERT, THOMAS(1552-1640), English Jesuit, was the eldest son and heir of William Fitzherbert of Swynnerton in Staffordshire, and grandson of Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, judge of the common pleas. He was educated at Oxford, where, at the age of twenty, he was imprisoned for recusancy. On his release he went to London, where he was a member of the association of young men founded in 1580 to assist the Jesuits Edmund Campion and Robert Parsons. In 1582 he withdrew to the continent, where he was active in the cause of Mary, queen of Scots. He married in this year Dorothy, daughter of Edward East of Bledlow in Buckinghamshire. After the death of his wife (1588) he went to Spain, where on the recommendation of the duke of Feria he received a pension from the king. He continued his intrigues against the English government, and in 1598 he was charged with complicity in a plot to poison Queen Elizabeth. After this he was for a short while in the service of the duke of Feria at Milan, then went to Rome, where he was ordained priest (1601-1602) and became agent for the English clergy. He was unpopular with them, however, owing to his subserviency to the Jesuits, and resigned the agency in 1607 owing to the remonstrances of the English arch-priest George Birkhead. In 1613 he joined the Society of Jesus, and was appointed superior of the English mission at Brussels in 1616, and in 1618 rector of the English college at Rome. He held this post to within a year of his death, which occurred at Rome on the 7th of August (O.S.) 1640.

Father Fitzherbert, who is described as “a person of excellent parts, a notable politician, and of graceful behaviour and generous spirit,” wrote many controversial works, a list of which is given in the article on him by Mr Thompson Cooper in theDictionary of National Biography, together with authorities for his life.

FITZ NEALor (Fitz Nigel),RICHARD(d. 1198), treasurer of Henry II. and Richard I. of England, and bishop of London, belonged to a great administrative family whose fortunes were closely linked with those of Henry I., Henry II. and Richard I. The founder of the family was Roger, bishop of Salisbury, the great minister of Henry I. Before the death of that sovereign (1135) the care of the treasury passed from Roger to his nephew, Nigel, bishop of Ely (d. 1169), who held that office until the whole family were disgraced by Stephen (1139). Becoming a partisan of the empress, Nigel reaped his reward at the accession of her son, Henry II., who made him at first chancellor and then treasurer. Nigel’s son, Richard, who was born before his father’s elevation to the episcopate (1133), succeeded to the office of treasurer in 1158, and held it continuously for forty years. His name appears in the lists of itinerant justices for 1179 and 1194, but these are the only occasions on which he exercised that office. Before 1184 he became dean of Lincoln, and was in that year presented by the chapter of Lincoln among three select candidates for the vacant see. The king passed him over in favour of Hugh of Avalon, having resolved on this occasion to make a disinterested appointment. Richard I., however, rewarded the treasurer’s services with the see of London (1189).

Richard Fitz Neal is best remembered as an author. He lacked the broad statesmanship of his father and great-uncle; he avoided any connexion with political parties; he is only once mentioned as taking part in a debate of the Great Council (1193), and then spoke, in his character as a bishop, to support a royal demand for a special aid. But his workDe necessariis observantiis Scaccarii dialogus, commonly called theDialogus de Scaccario, is of unique interest to the historian. It is an account, in two books, of the procedure followed by the exchequer in the author’s time. Richard handles his subject with the more enthusiasm because, as he explains, the “course” of the exchequer was largely the creation of his own family. When read in connexion with the Pipe Rolls theDialogusfurnishes a most faithful and detailed picture of English fiscal arrangements under Henry II. The speakers in the dialogue are Richard himself and an anonymous pupil. The latter puts leading questions which Richard answers in elaborate fashion. The date of the conversation is given in the prologue as 1176-1177. This probably marks the date at which the book was begun; it was not completed before 1178 or 1179. Soon after the author’s death we find it already recognized as the standard manual for exchequer officials. It was frequently transcribed and has been used by English antiquarians of every period. Hence it is the more necessary to insist that the historical statements which the treatise contains are sometimes demonstrably erroneous; the author appears to have relied excessively upon oral tradition. But, as the work is only known to us through transcripts, it is possible that some of the blunders which it now contains are due to the misdirected zeal of editors. Richard Fitz Neal also compiled in his earlier years a register or chronicle of contemporary affairs, arranged in three parallel columns. This was preserved in the exchequer at the time when he wrote theDialogus, but has since disappeared. Stubbs’ conjectural identification of thisLiber tricolumniswith the first part of theGesta Henrici(formerly attributed to Benedictus Abbas) is now abandoned as untenable.

See Madox’s edition in hisHistory of the Exchequer(1769); and that of A. Hughes, C.G. Crump and C. Johnson (Oxford, 1902). F. Liebermann’sEinleitung in den Dialogus de Scaccario(Göttingen, 1875) contains the fullest account of the author.

(H. W. C. D.)

FITZ-OSBERN, ROGER(fl. 1070), succeeded to the earldom of Hereford and the English estate of William Fitz-Osbern in 1071. He did not keep on good terms with William the Conqueror, and in 1075, disregarding the king’s prohibition, married his sister Emma to Ralph Guader, earl of Norfolk, at the famous bridal of Norwich. Immediately afterwards the two earls rebelled. But Roger, who was to bring his force from the west to join the earl of Norfolk, was held in check at the Severn by the Worcestershire fyrd which the English bishop Wulfstan brought into the field against him. On the collapse of his confederate’s rising, Roger was tried before the Great Council, deprived of his lands and earldom, and sentenced to perpetual imprisonment; but he was released, with other political prisoners, at the death of William I. in 1087.

FITZ-OSBERN, WILLIAM,Earl of Hereford (d. 1071), was an intimate friend of William the Conqueror, and the principal agent in preparing for the invasion of England. He received the earldom of Hereford with the special duty of pushing into Wales. During William’s absence in 1067, Fitz-Osbern was left as his deputy in central England, to guard it from the Welsh on one side, and the Danes on the other. He also acted as William’s lieutenant during the rebellions of 1069. In 1070 William sent him to assist Queen Matilda in the government of Normandy. But Richilde, widow of Baldwin VI. of Flanders, having offered to marry him if he would protect her son Arnulf against Robert the Frisian, Fitz-Osbern acceptedthe proposal and joined Richilde in Flanders. He was killed, fighting against Robert, at Cassel in 1071.

See Freeman,Norman Conquest, vols. iii. and iv.; Sir James Ramsay,Foundations of England, vol. ii.

FITZ OSBERT, WILLIAM(d. 1196), was a Londoner of good position who had served in the Third Crusade, and on his return took up the cause of the poorer citizens against the magnates who monopolized the government of London and assessed the taxes, as he alleged, with gross partiality. It is affirmed that he entered on this course of action through a quarrel with his elder brother who had refused him money. But this appears to be mere scandal; the chronicler Roger of Hoveden gives Fitz Osbert a high character, and he was implicitly trusted by the poorer citizens. He attempted to procure redress for them from the king; but the city magistrates persuaded the justiciar Hubert Walter that Fitz Osbert and his followers meditated plundering the houses of the rich. Troops were sent to seize the demagogue. He was smoked out of the sanctuary of St Mary le Bow, in which he had taken refuge, and summarily dragged to execution at Tyburn.

FITZ PETER, GEOFFREY(d. 1213), earl of Essex and chief justiciar of England, began his official career in the later years of Henry II., whom he served as a sheriff, a justice itinerant and a justice of the forest. During Richard’s absence on Crusade he was one of the five justices of the king’s court who stood next in authority to the regent, Longchamp. It was at this time (1190) that Fitz Peter succeeded to the earldom of Essex, in the right of his wife, who was descended from the famous Geoffrey de Mandeville. In attempting to assert his hereditary rights over Walden priory Fitz Peter came into conflict with Longchamp, and revenged himself by taking an active part in the baronial agitation through which the regent was expelled from his office. The king, however, forgave Fitz Peter for his share in these proceedings; and, though refusing to give him formal investiture of the Essex earldom, appointed him justiciar in succession to Hubert Walter (1198). In this capacity Fitz Peter continued his predecessor’s policy of encouraging foreign trade and the development of the towns; many of the latter received, during his administration, charters of self-government. He was continued in his office by John, who found him a useful instrument and described him in an official letter as “indispensable to the king and kingdom.” He proved himself an able instrument of extortion, and profited to no small extent by the spoliation of church lands in the period of the interdict. But he was too closely connected with the baronage to be altogether trusted by the king. The contemporaryHistoire des ducsdescribes Fitz Peter as living in constant dread of disgrace and confiscation. In the last years of his life he endeavoured to act as a mediator between the king and the opposition. It was by his mouth that the king promised to the nation the laws of Henry I. (at the council of St Albans, August 4th, 1213). But Fitz Peter died a few weeks later (Oct. 2), and his great office passed to Peter des Roches, one of the unpopular foreign favourites. Fitz Peter was neither a far-sighted nor a disinterested statesman; but he was the ablest pupil of Hubert Walter, and maintained the traditions of the great bureaucracy which the first and second Henries had founded.

See the original authorities specified for the reigns of Richard I. and John. Also Miss K. Norgate’sAngevin England, vol. ii. (1887), andJohn Lackland(1902); A. Ballard inEnglish Historical Review, xiv. p. 93; H.W.C. Davis’England under the Normans and Angevins(1905).

(H. W. C. D.)

FITZROY, ROBERT(1805-1865), English, vice-admiral, distinguished as a hydrographer and meteorologist, was born at Ampton Hall, Suffolk, on the 5th of July 1805, being a grandson, on the father’s side, of the third duke of Grafton, and on the mother’s, of the first marquis of Londonderry. He entered the navy from the Royal Naval College, then a school for cadets, on the 19th of October 1819, and on the 7th of September 1824 was promoted to the rank of lieutenant. After serving in the “Thetis” frigate in the Mediterranean and on the coast of South America, under the command of Sir John Phillimore and Captain Bingham, he was in August 1828 appointed to the “Ganges,” as flag-lieutenant to Rear-Admiral Sir Robert Otway, the commander-in-chief on the South American station; and on the death of Commander Stokes of the “Beagle,” on the 13th of November 1828, was promoted to the vacant command. The “Beagle,” a small brig of about 240 tons, was then, and had been for the two previous years, employed on the survey of the coasts of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, under the orders of Commander King in the “Adventure,” and, together with the “Adventure,” returned to England in the autumn of 1830. Fitzroy had brought home with him four Fuegians, one of whom died of smallpox a few weeks after arriving in England; to the others he endeavoured, with but slight success, to impart a rudimentary knowledge of religion and of some useful handicrafts; and, as he had pledged himself to restore them to their native country, he was making preparations in the summer of the following year to carry them back in a merchant ship bound to Valparaiso, when he received his reappointment to the “Beagle,” to continue the survey of the same wild coasts. The “Beagle” sailed from Plymouth on the 27th of December 1831, carrying as a supernumerary Charles Darwin, the afterwards famous naturalist. After an absence of nearly five years, and having, in addition to the survey of the Straits of Magellan and a great part of the coast of South America, run a chronometric line round the world, thus fixing the longitude of many secondary meridians with sufficient exactness for all the purposes of ordinary navigation, the “Beagle” anchored at Falmouth on the 2nd of October 1836. In 1835 Fitzroy had been advanced to the rank of captain and was now for the next few years principally employed in reducing and discussing his numerous observations. In 1837 he was awarded the gold medal of the Royal Geographical Society; and in 1839 he published, in two thick 8vo volumes, the narrative of the voyage of the “Adventure” and “Beagle,” 1826-1830, and of the “Beagle,” 1831-1836, with a third volume by Darwin—a book familiarly known as a record of scientific travel. Of Fitzroy’s work as a surveyor, carried on under circumstances of great difficulty, with scanty means, and with an outfit that was semi-officially denounced as “shabby,” Sir Francis Beaufort, the Hydrographer to the Admiralty, wrote, in a report to the House of Commons, 10th of February 1848, that “from the equator to Cape Horn, and from thence round to the river Plata on the eastern side of America, all that isimmediatelywanted has been already achieved by the splendid survey of Captain Robert Fitzroy.” This was written before steamships made the Straits of Magellan a high-road to the Pacific. The survey that was sufficient then became afterwards very far from sufficient.

In 1841 Fitzroy unsuccessfully contested the borough of Ipswich, and in the following year was returned to parliament as member for Durham. About the same time he accepted the post of conservator of the Mersey, and in his double capacity obtained leave to bring in a bill for improving the condition and efficiency of officers in the mercantile marine. This was not proceeded with at the time, but gave rise to the “voluntary certificate” instituted by the Board of Trade in 1845, and furnished some important clauses to the Mercantile Marine Act of 1850.

Early in 1843 Fitzroy was appointed governor and commander-in-chief of New Zealand, then recently established as a colony. He arrived in his government in December, whilst the excitement about the Wairau massacre was still fresh, and the questions relating to the purchase of land from the natives were in a very unsatisfactory state. The early settlers were greedy and unscrupulous; Fitzroy, on the other hand, had made no secret of his partiality for the aborigines. Between such discordant elements agreement was impossible: the settlers insulted the governor; the governor did not conciliate the settlers, who denounced his policy as adverse to their interests, as unjust and illegal; colonial feeling against him ran very high; petition after petition for his recall was sent home, and the government was compelled to yield to the pressure brought to bear on it. Fitzroy was relieved by Sir George Grey in November 1845.

In September 1848 he was appointed acting superintendentof the dockyard at Woolwich, and in the following March to the command of the “Arrogant,” one of the early screw frigates which had been fitted out under his supervision, and with which it was desired to carry out a series of experiments and trials. When these were finished he applied to be superseded, on account at once of his health and of his private affairs. In February 1850 he was accordingly placed on half-pay; nor did he ever serve again, although advanced in due course by seniority to the ranks of rear-and vice-admiral on the retired list (1857, 1863). In 1851 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1854, after serving for a few months as private secretary to his uncle, Lord Hardinge, then commander-in-chief of the army, he was appointed to the meteorological department of the Board of Trade, with, in the first instance, the peculiar title of “Meteorological Statist.”

From the date of his joining the “Beagle” in 1828 he had paid very great attention to the different phenomena foreboding or accompanying change of weather, and his narratives of the voyages of the “Adventure” and “Beagle” are full of interesting and valuable details concerning these. Accordingly, when in 1854 Lord Wrottesley, the president of the Royal Society, was asked by the Board of Trade to recommend a chief for its newly forming meteorological department, he, almost without hesitation, nominated Fitzroy, whose name and career became from that time identified with the progress of practical meteorology. HisWeather Book, published in 1863, embodies in broad outline his views, far in advance of those then generally held; and in spite of the rapid march of modern science, it is still worthy of careful attention and exact study. His storm warnings, in their origin, indeed, liable to a charge of empiricism, were gradually developed on a more scientific basis, and gave a high percentage of correct results. They were continued for eighteen months after his death by the assistants he had trained, and though stopped when the department was transferred to the management of a committee of the Royal Society, they were resumed a few months afterwards; and under the successive direction of Dr R.H. Scott and Dr W.N. Shaw, have been developed into what we now know them. But though it is perhaps by these storm warnings that Fitzroy’s name has been most generally known, seafaring men owe him a deeper debt of gratitude, not only for his labours in reducing to a more practical form the somewhat complicated wind charts of Captain Maury, but also for his great exertions in connexion with the life-boat association. Into this work, in its many ramifications, he threw himself with the energy of an excitable temperament, already strained by his long and anxious service in the Straits of Magellan. His last years were fully and to an excessive degree occupied by it; his health, both of body and mind, threatened to give way; but he refused to take the rest that was prescribed. In a fit of mental aberration he put an end to his existence on the 30th of April 1865.

Besides his works already named mention may be made ofRemarks on New Zealand(1846);Sailing Directions for South America(1848); his official reports to the Board of Trade (1857-1865); and occasional papers in the journal of the Royal Geographical Society and of the Royal United Service Institution.

(J. K. L.)

FITZROY,a city of Bourke county, Victoria, Australia, 2 m. by rail N.E. of and suburban to Melbourne. Pop. (1901) 31,610. It is a prosperous manufacturing town, well served with tramways and containing many fine residences.

FITZ STEPHEN, ROBERT(fl. 1150), son of Nesta, a Welsh princess and former mistress of Henry I., by Stephen, constable of Cardigan, whom Robert succeeded in that office, took service with Dermot of Leinster when that king visited England (1167), In 1169 Robert led the vanguard of Dermot’s Anglo-Welsh auxiliaries to Ireland, and captured Wexford, which he was then allowed to hold jointly with Maurice Fitz Gerald. Taken prisoner by the Irish in 1171, he was by them surrendered to Henry II., who appointed him lieutenant of the justiciar of Ireland, Hugh de Lacy. Robert rendered good service in the troubles of 1173, and was rewarded by receiving, jointly with Miles Cogan, a grant of Cork (1177). He had difficulty in maintaining his position and was nearly overwhelmed by a rising of Desmond in 1182. The date of his death is uncertain.

FITZ STEPHEN, WILLIAM(d.c.1190), biographer of Thomas Becket and royal justice, was a Londoner by origin. He entered Becket’s service at some date between 1154 and 1162. The chancellor employed Fitz Stephen in legal work, made him sub-deacon of his chapel and treated him as a confidant. Fitz Stephen appeared with Becket at the council of Northampton (1164) when the disgrace of the archbishop was published to the world; but he did not follow Becket into exile. He joined Becket’s household again in 1170, and was a spectator of the tragedy in Canterbury cathedral. To his pen we owe the most valuable among the extant biographies of his patron. Though he writes as a partisan he gives a precise account of the differences between Becket and the king. This biography contains a description of London which is our chief authority for the social life of the city in the 12th century. Despite his connexion with Becket, William subsequently obtained substantial preferment from the king. He was sheriff of Gloucestershire from 1171 to 1190, and a royal justice in the years 1176-1180 and 1189-1190.

See his “Vita S. Thomae” in J.C. Robertson’sMaterials for the History of Thomas Becket, vol. iii. (Rolls series, 1877). Sir T.D. Hardy, in hisCatalogue of Materials, ii. 330 (Rolls series, 1865), discusses the manuscripts of this biography and its value. W.H. Hutton,St Thomas of Canterbury, pp. 272-274 (1889), gives an account of the author.

(H. W. C. D.)

FITZ THEDMAR, ARNOLD(d. 1274), London chronicler and merchant, was born in London on the 9th of August 1201. Both his parents were of German extraction. The family of his mother migrated to England from Cologne in the reign of Henry II.; his father, Thedmar by name, was a citizen of Bremen who had been attracted to London by the privileges which the Plantagenets conferred upon the Teutonic Hanse. Arnold succeeded in time to his father’s wealth and position. He held an honourable position among the Hanse traders, and became their “alderman.” He was also, as he tells us himself, alderman of a London ward and an active partisan in municipal politics. In the Barons’ War he took the royal side against the populace and the mayor Thomas Fitz Thomas. The popular party planned, in 1265, to try him for his life before the folk-moot, but he was saved by the news of the battle of Evesham which arrived on the very day appointed for the trial. Even after the king’s triumph Arnold suffered from the malice of his enemies, who contrived that he should be unfairly assessed for the tallages imposed upon the city. He appealed for help to Henry III., and again to Edward I., with the result that his liability was diminished. In 1270 he was one of the four citizens to whose keeping the muniments of the city were entrusted. To this circumstance we probably owe the compilation of his chronicle.Chronica Maiorum et Vicecomitum, which begins at the year 1188 and is continued to 1274. From 1239 onwards this work is a mine of curious information. Though municipal in its outlook, it is valuable for the general history of the kingdom, owing to the important part which London played in the agitation against the misrule of Henry III. We have the king’s word for the fact that Arnold was a consistent royalist; but this is apparent from the whole tenor of the chronicle. Arnold was by no means blind to the faults of Henry’s government, but preferred an autocracy to the mob-rule which Simon de Montfort countenanced in London. Arnold died in 1274; the last fact recorded of him is that, in this year, he joined in a successful appeal to the king against the illegal grants which had been made by the mayor, Walter Hervey.

TheChronica Maiorum et Vicecomitum, with the other contents of Arnold’s common-place book, were edited for the Camden Society by T. Stapleton (1846), under the titleLiber de Antiquis Legibus. Our knowledge of Arnold’s life comes from theChronicaand his own biographical notes. Extracts, with valuable notes, are edited in G.H. Pertz’sMon. Germaniae historica, Scriptores, vol. xxviii. See also J.M. Lappenberg’sUrkundliche Geschichte des Hansischen Stahlhofes zu London(Hamburg, 1851).

(H. W. C. D)

FITZWALTER, ROBERT(d. 1235), leader of the baronial opposition against King John of England, belonged to theofficial aristocracy created by Henry I. and Henry II. He served John in the Norman wars, and was taken prisoner by Philip of France, and forced to pay a heavy ransom. He was implicated in the baronial conspiracy of 1212. According to his own statement the king had attempted to seduce his eldest daughter; but Robert’s account of his grievances varied from time to time. The truth seems to be that he was irritated by the suspicion with which John regarded the new baronage. Fitzwalter escaped a trial by flying to France. He was outlawed, but returned under a special amnesty after John’s reconciliation with the pope. He continued, however, to take the lead in the baronial agitation against the king, and upon the outbreak of hostilities was elected “marshal of the army of God and Holy Church” (1215). To his influence in London it was due that his party obtained the support of the city and used it as their base of operations. The famous clause of Magna Carta (§ 39) prohibiting sentences of exile, except as the result of a lawful trial, refers more particularly to his case. He was one of the twenty-five appointed to enforce the promises of Magna Carta; and his aggressive attitude was one of the causes which contributed to the recrudescence of civil war (1215). His incompetent leadership made it necessary for the rebels to invoke the help of France. He was one of the envoys who invited Louis to England, and was the first of the barons to do homage when the prince entered London. Though slighted by the French as a traitor to his natural lord, he served Louis with fidelity until captured at the battle of Lincoln (May 1217). Released on the conclusion of peace he joined the Damietta crusade of 1219, but returned at an early date to make his peace with the regency. The remainder of his career was uneventful; he died peacefully in 1235.

See the list of chronicles for the reign of John. TheHistoire des ducs de Normandie et des rois d’Angleterre(ed. F. Michel, Paris, 1840) gives the fullest account of his quarrel with the king. Miss K. Norgate’sJohn Lackland(1902), W. McKechnie’sMagna Carta(1905), and Stubbs’sConstitutional History, vol. i. ch. xii. (1897), should also be consulted.

FITZWILLIAM, SIR WILLIAM(1526-1599), lord deputy of Ireland, was the eldest son of Sir William Fitzwilliam (d. 1576) of Milton, Northamptonshire, where he was born, and grandson of another Sir William Fitzwilliam (d. 1534), alderman and sheriff of London, who was also treasurer and chamberlain to Cardinal Wolsey, and who purchased Milton in 1506. On his mother’s side Fitzwilliam was related to John Russell, 1st earl of Bedford, a circumstance to which he owed his introduction to Edward VI. In 1559 he became vice-treasurer of Ireland and a member of the Irish House of Commons; and between this date and 1571 he was (during the absences of Thomas Radclyffe, earl of Sussex, and of his successor, Sir Henry Sidney) five times lord justice of Ireland. In 1571 Fitzwilliam himself was appointed lord deputy, but like Elizabeth’s other servants he received little or no money, and his period of government was marked by continuous penury and its attendant evils, inefficiency, mutiny and general lawlessness. Moreover, the deputy quarrelled with the lord president of Connaught, Sir Edward Fitton (1527-1579), but he compelled the earl of Desmond to submit in 1574. He disliked the expedition of Walter Devereux, earl of Essex; he had a further quarrel with Fitton, and after a serious illness he was allowed to resign his office. Returning to England in 1575 he was governor of Fotheringhay Castle at the time of Mary Stuart’s execution. In 1588 Fitzwilliam was again in Ireland as lord deputy, and although old and ill he displayed great activity in leading expeditions, and found time to quarrel with Sir Richard Bingham (1528-1599), the new president of Connaught. In 1594 he finally left Ireland, and five years later he died at Milton. From Fitzwilliam, whose wife was Anne, daughter of Sir William Sidney, were descended the barons and earls Fitzwilliam.

See R. Bagwell,Ireland under the Tudors, vol. ii. (1885).

FITZWILLIAM, WILLIAM WENTWORTH FITZWILLIAM,2nd Earl(1748-1833), English statesman, was the son of the 1st earl (peerage of the United Kingdom), who died in 1756. The English family of Fitzwilliam claimed descent from a natural son of William the Conqueror, and among its earlier members were a Sir William Fitzwilliam (1460-1534), sheriff of London, who in 1506 acquired the family seat of Milton Manor in Northamptonshire, and his grandson Sir William Fitzwilliam (see above). The latter’s grandson was made an Irish baron in 1620; and in later generations the Irish titles of Viscount Milton and Earl Fitzwilliam (1716) and the English titles of Baron Milton (1742) and Viscount Milton and Earl Fitzwilliam (1746), were added. These were all in the English house of the Fitzwilliams of Milton Manor. They were distinct from the Irish Fitzwilliams of Meryon, who descended from a member of the English family who went to Ireland with Prince John at the end of the 12th century, and whose titles of Baron and Viscount Fitzwilliam died out with the 8th viscount in 1833; the best known of these was Richard, 7th viscount (1745-1816), who left the Fitzwilliam library and a fund for creating the Fitzwilliam Museum to Cambridge University.

The 2nd earl inherited not only the Fitzwilliam estates in Northamptonshire, but also, on the death of his uncle the marquess of Rockingham in 1782, the valuable Wentworth estates in Yorkshire, and thus became one of the wealthiest noblemen of the day. He had been at Eton with C.J. Fox, and became an active supporter of the Whig party; and in 1794, with the duke of Portland, Windham and other “old Whigs” he joined Pitt’s cabinet, becoming president of the council. At the end of the year, however, he was sent to Ireland as viceroy. Fitzwilliam, however, had set his face against the jobbery of the Protestant leaders, and threw himself warmly into Grattan’s scheme for admitting the Catholics to political power; and in March 1795 he was recalled, his action being disavowed by Pitt, the result of a series of misunderstandings which appeared to Fitzwilliam to give him just cause of complaint. The quarrel was, however, made up, and in 1798 Fitzwilliam was appointed lord-lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire. He continued to take an active part in politics, and in 1806 was president of the council, but his Whig opinions kept him mainly in opposition. He died in February 1833, his son, Charles William Wentworth, the 3rd earl (1786-1857), and later earls, being notable figures in the politics and social life of the north of England.

FIUME(Slav.Rjeka,RiekaorReka, Ger.St Veit am Flaum), a royal free town and port of Hungary; situated at the northern extremity of the Gulf of Quarnero, an inlet of the Adriatic, and on a small stream called the Rjeka, Recina or Fiumara, 70 m. by rail S.E. of Trieste. Pop. (1900) 38,955; including 17,354 Italians, 14,885 Slavs (Croats, Serbs and Slovenes), 2482 Hungarians and 1945 Germans. Geographically, Fiume belongs to Croatia; politically the town, with its territory of some 7 sq. m., became a part of Hungary in August 1870. The picturesque old town occupies an outlying ridge of the Croatian Karst; while the modern town, with its wharves, warehouses, electric light and electric trams, is crowded into the amphitheatre left between the hills and the shore. On the north-west there is a fine public garden. The most interesting buildings are the cathedral church of the Assumption, founded in 1377, and completed with a modern façade copied from that of the Pantheon in Rome; the church of St Veit, on the model of Santa Maria della Salute in Venice; and the Pilgrimage church, hung with offerings from shipwrecked sailors, and approached by a stairway of 400 steps. In the old town is a Roman triumphal arch, said to have been erected during the 3rd centuryA.D.in honour of the emperor Claudius II. Fiume also possesses a theatre and a music-hall; palaces for the governor and the Austrian emperor; a high court of justice for commerce and marine; a chamber of commerce; an asylum for lunatics and the aged poor; an industrial home for boys; and several large schools, including the marine academy (1856) and the school of seamanship (1903). Municipal affairs are principally managed by the Italians, who sympathize with the Hungarians against the Slavs.

Fiume is the only seaport of Hungary, with which country it was connected, in 1809, by the Maria Louisa road, through Karlstadt. It has two railways, opened in 1873; one a branch of the southern railway from Vienna to Trieste, the other of theHungarian state railway from Karlstadt. There are several harbours, including thePorto Canale, for coasting vessels; thePorto Baross, for timber; and thePorto Grande, sheltered by theMaria Theresiamole and breakwater, besides four lesser moles, and flanked by the quays, with their grain-elevators. The development of thePorto Grande, originally named thePorto Nuovo, was undertaken in 1847, and carried on at intervals as trade increased. In 1902, arrangements were made for the construction of a new mole and an enlargement of the quays and breakwater; these works to be completed within 5 years, at a cost of £420,000. The exports, worth £6,460,000 in 1902, chiefly consisted of grain, flour, sugar, timber and horses; the imports, worth £3,678,000 in the same year, of coal, wine, rice, fruit, jute and various minerals, chemicals and oils. A large share in the carrying trade belongs to the Cunard, Adria, Ungaro-Croat and Austrian Lloyd Steamship Companies, subsidized by the state. A steady stream of Croatian and Hungarian emigrants, officially numbered in 1902 at 7500, passes through Fiume. Altogether 11,550 vessels, of 1,963,000 tons, entered at Fiume in 1902; and 11,535, of 1,956,000, cleared. Foremost among the industrial establishments are Whitehead’s torpedo factory, Messrs Smith & Meynie’s paper-mill, the royal tobacco factory, a chemical factory, and several flour-mills, tanneries and rope manufactories. In 1902 the last shipbuilding yard was closed. The soil of the surrounding country is stony, but the climate is warm, and wine is extensively produced. The Gulf of Quarnero yields a plentiful supply of fish, and the tunny trade with Trieste and Venice is of considerable importance. Steamboats ply daily from Fiume to the Istrian health-resort of Abbazia, the Croatian port of Buccari, and the islands of Veglia and Cherso.

Fiume is supposed to occupy the site of the ancient Liburnian townTersatica; later it received the name ofVitopolis, and eventually that ofFanum Sancti Viti ad Flumen, from which its present name is derived. It was destroyed by Charlemagne in 799, from which time it probably long remained under the dominion of the Franks. It was held in feudal tenure from the patriarch of Aquileia by the bishop of Pola, and afterwards, in 1139, by the counts of Duino, who retained it till the end of the 14th century. It next passed into the hands of the counts of Wallsee, by whom it was surrendered in 1471 to the emperor Frederick III., who incorporated it with the dominions of the house of Austria. From this date till 1776 Fiume was ruled by imperial governors. In 1723 it was declared a free port by Charles VI., in 1776 united to Croatia by the empress Maria Theresa, and in 1779 declared acorpus separatumof the Hungarian crown. In 1809 Fiume was occupied by the French; but it was retaken by the British in 1813, and restored to Austria in the following year. It was ceded to Hungary in 1822, but after the revolution of 1848-1849 was annexed to the crown lands of Croatia, under the government of which it remained till it came under Hungarian control in 1870.

FIVES,a ball-game played by two or four players in a court enclosed on three or four sides, the ball being struck with the hand, usually protected by a glove, whence the game is known in America as “handball.” The origin of the game is probably the Frenchjeu de paume, tennis played with the hand, the hand in that case being eventually superseded by the racquet. Fives and racquets are probably both descended from thejeu de paume, of which they are simplified forms. The name fives may be derived fromla longue paume, in which five on a side played, or from the five fingers, or from the fact that five points had to be made by the winners (in modern times the game consists of fifteen points). Fives is played in Great Britain principally at the schools and universities, although its encouragement is included in the functions of the Tennis Racquets and Fives Association, founded in 1908. In America it is much affected for training purposes by professional athletes and boxers. There are two forms of fives—the Eton game and the Rugby game—which require separate notice, though the main features of the two games are the serving of the ball to the taker of the service, the necessity of hitting the ball before the second bounce, and of hitting it above a line and within the limits of the court.

Eton Fives.—The peculiar features of the Eton court arose from the fact that in early times the game was played against the chapel-wall, so that buttresses formed side walls and the balustrade of the chapel-steps projected into the court, while a step divided the court latitudinally. These were reproduced in the regular courts, the buttress being known as the “pepper-box” and the space between it and the step as the “hole.” The riser of the step is about 5 in. The floor of the court is paved; there is no back wall. On the front wall is a ledge, known as the “line,” 4 ft. 6 in. from the floor, and a vertical line, painted; 3 ft. 8 in. from the right-hand wall. Four people usually play, two against two; one of each pair plays in the forward court, the other in the back court. The server stands on the left of the forward court, his partner in the right-hand corner of the back court; the taker of the service by the right wall of the forward court, his partner at the left-hand corner of the back court. The forward court is known as “on-wall,” the other as “off-wall.” The server must toss the ball gently against the front wall, above the line, so that it afterwards hits the right wall and falls on the “off-wall,” but the server’s object is not, as at tennis and racquets, to send a service that cannot be returned. At fives he must send a service that hand-out can take easily; indeed hand-out can refuse to take any service that he does not like, and if he fails to return the ball above the line no stroke is counted. After the service has been returned either of the opponents returns the ball if he can, and so on, each side and either member of it returning the ball above the line alternately till one side or the other hits it below the line or out of court. Only hand-in can score. If hand-in wins a stroke, his side scores a point; if he misses a stroke he loses his innings and his partner becomes server, unless he has already served in this round, in which case the opponents become hand-in. The game is fifteen points. If the score is “13 all,” the out side may “set” the game to 5 or 3;i.e.the game becomes one of 5 or 3 points; at “14 all” it may be set to three. The game and its terminology being somewhat intricate, can best be learnt in the court. No apparatus is required except padded gloves and fives-balls, which are covered with white leather tightly stretched over a hard foundation of cork, strips of leather and twine. The Eton balls are 1¾ in. in diameter and weigh about 1¼ oz. apiece.

Rugby Fivesis much less complicated owing to the simpler form of the court. The rules as to service, taking the balls, &c., are the same as in Eton Fives. The balls are rather smaller. The courts are larger, measuring about 34 ft. by 19 ft. 6 in. and may be roofed or open. The side walls slope from 20 ft. to 12 ft. Some courts have a dwarf back wall, some have none. The back wall, when there is one, is 5 ft. 8 in. in height. In some courts the side walls are plain; in others, where there is no back wall, a projection about 3 in. deep is built at right angles to the two side walls; in others a buttress, similar to thetambourof the tennis-court, is built out from the left-hand wall about 10 ft. from the front wall, and continued to the end of the court. The line is generally a board fixed across the front wall, its upper edge 34 in. from the ground, but the height varies slightly.

Handball, of ancient popularity in Ireland and much played in the United States, is practically identical with fives, though there are minor differences. The usual American court is about 60 ft. long, 24½ ft. wide and 35 ft. high at the front, tapering to 33 ft. at the back wall. The front wall is of brick faced with marble, the sides of cement and the floor of white pine laid on beams 10 in. apart. These are the dimensions of the Brooklyn court of the former American champion, Phil Casey (d. 1904), which has been extensively copied. Twenty-one aces constitute a game and gloves are not usually worn. The American ball is a trifle larger and softer than the Irish, which is called a “red ace” when made of solid red rubber, and “black ace” when made of black rubber. Baggs of Tipperary, who was in his prime about 1855, was the most celebrated Irish handball player. In his day nearly every village tavern in Ireland had a court. Browning and Lawlor, who won the Irish championship in 1885,were his most prominent successors. In America Phil Casey and Michael Egan are the best-known names.

Back to Index Next