Leech was a singularly rapid and indefatigable worker. Dean Hole tells us, when he was his guest, “I have known him send off from my house three finished drawings on the wood, designed, traced, and rectified, without much effort as it seemed, between breakfast and dinner.” The best technical qualities of Leech’s art, his unerring precision, his unfailing vivacity in the use of the line, are seen most clearly in the first sketches for his woodcuts, and in the more finished drawings made on tracing-paper from these first outlines, before the chiaroscuro was added and the designs were transcribed by the engraver. Turning to the mental qualities of his art, it would be a mistaken criticism which ranked him as a comic draughtsman. Like Hogarth he was a true humorist, a student of human life, though he observed humanity mainly in its whimsical aspects,“Hitting all he saw with shaftsWith gentle satire, kin to charity,That harmed not.”The earnestness and gravity of moral purpose which is so constant a note in the work of Hogarth is indeed far less characteristic of Leech, but there are touches of pathos and of tragedy in such of thePunchdesigns as the “Poor Man’s Friend” (1845), and “General Février turned Traitor” (1855), and in “The Queen of the Arena” in the first volume ofOnce a Week, which are sufficient to prove that more solemn powers, for which his daily work afforded no scope, lay dormant in their artist. The purity and manliness of Leech’s own character are impressed on his art. We find in it little of the exaggeration and grotesqueness, and none of the fierce political enthusiasm, of which the designs of Gillray are so full. Compared with that of his great contemporary George Cruikshank, his work is restricted both in compass of subject and in artistic dexterity.Biographies of Leech have been written by John Brown (1882), and Frith (1891); see also “John Leech’s Pictures of Life and Character,” by Thackeray,Quarterly Review(December 1854); letter by John Ruskin,Arrows of the Chace, vol. i. p. 161; “Un Humoriste Anglais,” by Ernest Chesneau,Gazette des Beaux Arts(1875).
Leech was a singularly rapid and indefatigable worker. Dean Hole tells us, when he was his guest, “I have known him send off from my house three finished drawings on the wood, designed, traced, and rectified, without much effort as it seemed, between breakfast and dinner.” The best technical qualities of Leech’s art, his unerring precision, his unfailing vivacity in the use of the line, are seen most clearly in the first sketches for his woodcuts, and in the more finished drawings made on tracing-paper from these first outlines, before the chiaroscuro was added and the designs were transcribed by the engraver. Turning to the mental qualities of his art, it would be a mistaken criticism which ranked him as a comic draughtsman. Like Hogarth he was a true humorist, a student of human life, though he observed humanity mainly in its whimsical aspects,
“Hitting all he saw with shaftsWith gentle satire, kin to charity,That harmed not.”
“Hitting all he saw with shafts
With gentle satire, kin to charity,
That harmed not.”
The earnestness and gravity of moral purpose which is so constant a note in the work of Hogarth is indeed far less characteristic of Leech, but there are touches of pathos and of tragedy in such of thePunchdesigns as the “Poor Man’s Friend” (1845), and “General Février turned Traitor” (1855), and in “The Queen of the Arena” in the first volume ofOnce a Week, which are sufficient to prove that more solemn powers, for which his daily work afforded no scope, lay dormant in their artist. The purity and manliness of Leech’s own character are impressed on his art. We find in it little of the exaggeration and grotesqueness, and none of the fierce political enthusiasm, of which the designs of Gillray are so full. Compared with that of his great contemporary George Cruikshank, his work is restricted both in compass of subject and in artistic dexterity.
Biographies of Leech have been written by John Brown (1882), and Frith (1891); see also “John Leech’s Pictures of Life and Character,” by Thackeray,Quarterly Review(December 1854); letter by John Ruskin,Arrows of the Chace, vol. i. p. 161; “Un Humoriste Anglais,” by Ernest Chesneau,Gazette des Beaux Arts(1875).
(J. M. G.)
LEECH,the common name of members of the Hirudinea, a division of Chaetopod worms. It is doubtful whether the medicinal leech,Hirudo medicinalis, which is rarer in England than on the continent of Europe, or the horse leech,Aulastoma gulo, often confused with it, has the best right to the original possession of this name. But at present the word “leech” is applied to every member of the group Hirudinea, for the general structure and classification of which seeChaetopoda. There are many genera and species of leeches, the exact definitions of which are still in need of a more complete survey. They occur in all parts of the world and are mostly aquatic, though sometimes terrestrial, in habit. The aquatic forms frequent streams, ponds and marshes, and the sea. The members of this group are alwayscarnivorous or parasitic, and prey upon both vertebrates and invertebrates. In relation to their parasitic habit one or two suckers are always developed, the one at the anterior and the other at the posterior end of the body. In one subdivision of the leeches, theGnathobdellidae, the mouth has three chitinous jaws which produce a triangular bite, though the action has been described as like that of a circular saw. Leeches without biting jaws possess a protrusible proboscis, and generally engulf their prey, as does the horse leech when it attacks earthworms. But some of them are also ectoparasites. The leech has been used in medicine from remote antiquity as a moderate blood-letter; and it is still so used, though more rarely than formerly. As unlicensed blood-letters, certain land-leeches are among the most unpleasant of parasites that can be encountered in a tropical jungle. A species ofHaemadipsaof Ceylon attaches itself to the passer-by and draws blood with so little irritation that the sufferer is said to be aware of its presence only by the trickling from the wounds produced. Small leeches taken into the mouth with drinking-water may give rise to serious symptoms by attaching themselves to the fauces and neighbouring parts and thence sucking blood. The effects of these parasites have been mistaken for those of disease. All leeches are very extensile and can contract the body to a plump, pear-shaped form, or extend it to a long and worm-like shape. They frequently progress after the fashion of a “looper” caterpillar, attaching themselves alternately by the anterior and the posterior sucker. Others swim with eel-like curves through the water, while one land-leech, at any rate, moves in a gliding way like a land Planarian, and leaves, also like the Planarian, a slimy trail behind it. Leeches are usually olive green to brown in colour, darker patches and spots being scattered over a paler ground. The marine parasitic leechPontobdellais of a bright green, as is also the land-leechTrocheta.
The term “leech,” as an old English synonym for physician, is from a Teutonic root meaning “heal,” and is etymologically distinct from the name (O. Eng.lyce) of theHirudo, though the use of the one by the other has helped to assimilate the two words.
(F. E. B.)
LEEDS, THOMAS OSBORNE,1stDuke of(1631-1712), English statesman, commonly known also by his earlier title ofEarl of Danby, son of Sir Edward Osborne, Bart., of Kiveton, Yorkshire, was born in 1631. He was great-grandson of Sir Edward Osborne (d. 1591), lord mayor of London, who, according to the accepted account, while apprentice to Sir William Hewett, cloth worker and lord mayor in 1559, made the fortunes of the family by leaping from London Bridge into the river and rescuing Anne (d. 1585), the daughter of his employer, whom he afterwards married.1Thomas Osborne, the future lord treasurer, succeeded to the baronetcy and estates in Yorkshire on his father’s death in 1647, and after unsuccessfully courting his cousin Dorothy Osborne, married Lady Bridget Bertie, daughter of the earl of Lindsey. He was introduced to public life and to court by his neighbour in Yorkshire, George, 2nd duke of Buckingham, was elected M.P. for York in 1665, and gained the “first step in his future rise” by joining Buckingham in his attack on Clarendon in 1667. In 1668 he was appointed joint treasurer of the navy with Sir Thomas Lyttelton, and subsequently sole treasurer. He succeeded Sir William Coventry as commissioner for the state treasury in 1669, and in 1673 was appointed a commissioner for the admiralty. He was created Viscount Osborne in the Scottish peerage on the 2nd of February 1673, and a privy councillor on the 3rd of May. On the 19th of June, on the resignation of Lord Clifford, he was appointed lord treasurer and made Baron Osborne of Kiveton and Viscount Latimer in the peerage of England, while on the 27th of June 1674 he was created earl of Danby, when he surrendered his Scottish peerage of Osborne to his second son Peregrine Osborne. He was appointed the same year lord-lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and in 1677 received the Garter.
Danby was a statesman of very different calibre from the leaders of the Cabal ministry, Buckingham and Arlington. His principal aim was no doubt the maintenance and increase of his own influence and party, but his ambition corresponded with definite political views. A member of the old cavalier party, a confidential friend and correspondent of the despotic Lauderdale, he desired to strengthen the executive and the royal authority. At the same time he was a keen partisan of the established church, an enemy of both Roman Catholics and dissenters, and an opponent of all toleration. In 1673 he opposed the Indulgence, supported the Test Act, and spoke against the proposal for giving relief to the dissenters. In June 1675 he signed the paper of advice drawn up by the bishops for the king, urging the rigid enforcement of the laws against the Roman Catholics, their complete banishment from the court, and the suppression of conventicles,2and a bill introduced by him imposing special taxes on recusants and subjecting Roman Catholic priests to imprisonment for life was only thrown out as too lenient because it secured offenders from the charge of treason. The same year he introduced a Test Oath by which all holding office or seats in either House of Parliament were to declare resistance to the royal power a crime, and promise to abstain from all attempts to alter the government of either church or state; but this extreme measure of retrograde toryism was successfully opposed by wiser statesmen. The king himself as a Roman Catholic secretly opposed and also doubted the wisdom and practicability of this “thorough” policy of repression. Danby therefore ordered a return from every diocese of the numbers of dissenters, both Romanist and Protestant, in order by a proof of their insignificance to remove the royal scruples.3In December 1676 he issued a proclamation for the suppression of coffee-houses because of the “defamation of His Majesty’s Government” which took place in them, but this was soon withdrawn. In 1677, to secure Protestantism in case of a Roman Catholic succession, he introduced a bill by which ecclesiastical patronage and the care of the royal children were entrusted to the bishops; but this measure, like the other, was thrown out.
In foreign affairs Danby showed a stronger grasp of essentials. He desired to increase English trade, credit and power abroad. He was a determined enemy both to Roman influence and to French ascendancy. He terminated the war with Holland in 1674, and from that time maintained a friendly correspondence with William; while in 1677, after two years of tedious negotiations, he overcame all obstacles, and in spite of James’s opposition, and without the knowledge of Louis XIV., effected the marriage between William and Mary that was the germ of the Revolution and the Act of Settlement. This national policy, however, could only be pursued, and the minister could only maintain himself in power, by acquiescence in the king’s personal relations with the king of France settled by the disgraceful Treaty of Dover in 1670, which included Charles’s acceptance of a pension, and bound him to a policy exactly opposite to Danby’s, one furthering French and Roman ascendancy. Though not a number of the Cabal ministry, and in spite of his own denial, Danby must, it would seem, have known of these relations after becoming lord treasurer. In any case, in 1676, together with Lauderdale alone, he consented to a treaty between Charles and Louis according to which the foreign policy of both kings was to be conducted in union, and Charles received an annual subsidy of £100,000. In 1678 Charles, taking advantage of the growing hostility to France in the nation and parliament, raised his price, and Danby by his directions demanded through Ralph Montagu (afterwards duke of Montagu) six million livres a year (£300,000) for three years. Simultaneously Danby guided through parliament a bill for raising money for a war against France; a league was concluded with Holland, and troops were actually sent there. That Danby, in spite of these compromising transactions, remained in intention faithful to the national interests, appears clearly from the hostility with which he was still regarded by France. In 1676 he is describedby Ruvigny to Louis XIV. as intensely antagonistic to France and French interests, and as doing his utmost to prevent the treaty of that year.4In 1678, on the rupture of relations between Charles and Louis, a splendid opportunity was afforded Louis of paying off old scores by disclosing Danby’s participation in the king’s demands for French gold.
Every circumstance now conspired to effect his fall. Although both abroad and at home his policy had generally embodied the wishes of the ascendant party in the state, Danby had never obtained the confidence of the nation. His character inspired no respect, and he could not reckon during the whole of his long career on the support of a single individual. Charles is said to have told him when he made him treasurer that he had only two friends in the world, himself and his own merit.5He was described to Pepys on his acquiring office as “one of a broken sort of people that have not much to lose and therefore will venture all,” and as “a beggar having £1100 or £1200 a year, but owes above £10,000.” His office brought him in £20,000 a year,6and he was known to be making large profits by the sale of offices; he maintained his power by corruption and by jealously excluding from office men of high standing and ability. Burnet described him as “the most hated minister that had ever been about the king.” Worse men had been less detested, but Danby had none of the amiable virtues which often counteract the odium incurred by serious faults. Evelyn, who knew him intimately from his youth, describes him as “a man of excellent natural parts but nothing of generous or grateful.” Shaftesbury, doubtless no friendly witness, speaks of him as an inveterate liar, “proud, ambitious, revengeful, false, prodigal and covetous to the highest degree,”7and Burnet supports his unfavourable judgment to a great extent. His corruption, his mean submission to a tyrant wife, his greed, his pale face and lean person, which had succeeded to the handsome features and comeliness of earlier days,8were the subject of ridicule, from the witty sneers of Halifax to the coarse jests of the anonymous writers of innumerable lampoons. By his championship of the national policy he had raised up formidable foes abroad without securing a single friend or supporter at home,9and his fidelity to the national interests was now, through a very mean and ignoble act of personal spite, to be the occasion of his downfall.
Danby in appointing a new secretary of state had preferred Sir W. Temple, a strong adherent of the anti-French policy, to Montagu. The latter, after a quarrel with the duchess of Cleveland, was dismissed from the king’s employment. He immediately went over to the opposition, and in concert with Louis XIV. and Barillon, the French ambassador, by whom he was supplied with a large sum of money, arranged a plan for effecting Danby’s ruin. He obtained a seat in parliament; and in spite of Danby’s endeavour to seize his papers by an order in council, on the 20th of December 1678 caused two of the incriminating letters written by Danby to him to be read aloud to the House of Commons by the Speaker. The House immediately resolved on Danby’s impeachment. At the foot of each of the letters appeared the king’s postscripts, “I approve of this letter. C.R.,” in his own handwriting; but they were not read by the Speaker, and were entirely neglected in the proceedings against the minister, thus emphasizing the constitutional principle that obedience to the orders of the sovereign can be no bar to an impeachment. He was charged with having encroached to himself royal powers by treating matters of peace and war without the knowledge of the council, with having promoted the raising of a standing army on pretence of a war with France, with having obstructed the assembling of parliament, with corruption and embezzlement in the treasury. Danby, while communicating the “Popish Plot” to the parliament, had from the first expressed his disbelief in the so-called revelations of Titus Oates, and his backwardness in the matter now furnished an additional charge of having “traitorously concealed the plot.” He was voted guilty by the Commons; but while the Lords were disputing whether the accused peer should have bail, and whether the charges amounted to more than a misdemeanour, parliament was prorogued on the 30th of December and dissolved three weeks later. In March 1679 a new parliament hostile to Danby was returned, and he was forced to resign the treasurership; but he received a pardon from the king under the Great Seal, and a warrant for a marquessate.10His proposed advancement in rank was severely reflected upon in the Lords, Halifax declaring it in the king’s presence the recompense of treason, “not to be borne”; and in the Commons his retirement from office by no means appeased his antagonists. The proceedings against him were revived, a committee of privileges deciding on the 19th of March 1679 that the dissolution of parliament was no abatement of an impeachment. A motion was passed for his committal by the Lords, who, as in Clarendon’s case, voted his banishment. This was, however, rejected by the Commons, who now passed an act of attainder. Danby had removed to the country, but returned on the 21st of April to avoid the threatened passing by the Lords of the attainder, and was sent to the Tower. In his written defence he now pleaded the king’s pardon, but on the 5th of May 1679 it was pronounced illegal by the Commons. This declaration was again repeated by the Commons in 1689 on the occasion of another attack made upon Danby in that year, and was finally embodied in the Act of Settlement in 1701.
The Commons now demanded judgment against the prisoner from the Lords. Further proceedings, however, were stopped by the dissolution of parliament again in July; but for nearly five years Danby remained a prisoner in the Tower. A number of pamphlets asserting the complicity of the fallen minister in the Popish Plot, and even accusing him of the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, were published in 1679 and 1680; they were answered by Danby’s secretary, Edward Christian, inReflections; and in May 1681 Danby was actually indicted by the Grand Jury of Middlesex for Godfrey’s murder on the accusation of Edward FitzHarris. His petition to the king for a trial by his peers on this indictment was refused, and an attempt to prosecute the publishers of the false evidence in the king’s bench was unsuccessful. For some time all appeals to the king, to parliament, and to the courts of justice were unavailing; but on the 12th of February 1684 his application to Chief Justice Jeffreys was at last successful, and he was set at liberty on finding bail to the amount of £40,000, to appear in the House of Lords in the following session. He visited the king at court the same day; but took no part in public affairs for the rest of the reign.
After James’s accession Danby was discharged from his bail by the Lords on the 19th of May 1685, and the order declaring a dissolution of parliament to be no abatement of an impeachment was reversed. He again took his seat in the Lords as a leader of the moderate Tory party. Though a strong Tory and supporter of the hereditary principle, James’s attacks on Protestantism soon drove him into opposition. He was visited by Dykvelt, William of Orange’s agent; and in June 1687 he wrote to William assuring him of his support. On the 30th of June 1688 he was one of the seven leaders of the Revolution who signed the invitation to William. In November he occupied York in the prince’s interest, returning to London to meet William on the 26th of December. He appears to have thought that William would not claim the crown,11and at first supported the theory that the throne having been vacated by James’s flight the succession fell as of right to Mary; but as this met with little support, and was rejected both by William and by Mary herself, he voted against the regency and joined withHalifax and the Commons in declaring the prince and princess joint sovereigns.
Danby had rendered extremely important services to William’s cause. On the 20th of April 1689 he was created marquess of Carmarthen and was made lord-lieutenant of the three ridings of Yorkshire. He was, however, still greatly disliked by the Whigs, and William, instead of reinstating him in the lord treasurership, only appointed him president of the council in February 1689. He did not conceal his vexation and disappointment, which were increased by the appointment of Halifax to the office of lord privy seal. The antagonism between the “black” and the “white marquess” (the latter being the nickname given to Carmarthen in allusion to his sickly appearance), which had been forgotten in their common hatred to the French policy and to Rome, revived in all its bitterness. He retired to the country and was seldom present at the council. In June and July new motions were made in parliament for his removal; but notwithstanding his great unpopularity, on the retirement of Halifax in 1690 he again acquired the chief power in the state, which he retained till 1695 by bribery in parliament and by the support of the king and queen. In 1690, during William’s absence in Ireland, he was appointed Mary’s chief adviser. In 1691, desiring to compromise Halifax, he discredited himself by the patronage of an informer named Fuller, soon proved an impostor. He was absent in 1692 when the Place Bill was thrown out. In 1693 he presided in great state as lord high steward at the trial of Lord Mohun; and on the 4th of May 1694 he was created duke of Leeds.12The same year he supported the Triennial Bill, but opposed the new treason bill as weakening the hands of the executive. Meanwhile fresh attacks had been made upon him. He was accused unjustly of Jacobitism. In April 1695 he was impeached once more by the Commons for having received a bribe of 5000 guineas to procure the new charter for the East India Company. In his defence, whilst denying that he had received the money and appealing to his past services, he did not attempt to conceal the fact that according to his experience bribery was an acknowledged and universal custom in public business, and that he himself had been instrumental in obtaining money for others. Meanwhile his servant, who was said to have been the intermediary between the duke and the Company in the transaction, fled the country; and no evidence being obtainable to convict, the proceedings fell to the ground. In May 1695 he had been ordered to discontinue his attendance at the council. He returned in October, but was not included among the lords justices appointed regents during William’s absence in this year. In November he was created D.C.L. by the university of Oxford; in December he became a commissioner of trade, and in December 1696 governor of the Royal Fishery Company. He opposed the prosecution of Sir John Fenwick, but supported the action taken by members of both Houses in defence of William’s rights in the same year. On the 23rd of April 1698 he entertained the tsar, Peter the Great, at Wimbledon. He had for some time lost the real direction of affairs, and in May 1699 he was compelled to retire from office and from the lord-lieutenancy of Yorkshire.
In Queen Anne’s reign, in his old age, he is described as “a gentleman of admirable natural parts, great knowledge and experience in the affairs of his own country, but of no reputation with any party. He hath not been regarded, although he took his place at the council board.”13The veteran statesman, however, by no means acquiesced in his enforced retirement, and continued to take an active part in politics. As a zealous churchman and Protestant he still possessed a following. In 1705 he supported a motion that the church was in danger, and in 1710 in Sacheverell’s case spoke in defence of hereditary right.14In November of this year he obtained a renewal of his pension of £3500 a year from the post office which he was holding in 1694,15and in 1711 at the age of eighty was a competitor for the office of lord privy seal.16His long and eventful career, however, terminated soon afterwards by his death on the 26th of July 1712.
In 1710 the duke had publishedCopies and Extracts of some letters written to and from the Earl of Danby ... in the years 1676, 1677 and 1678, in defence of his conduct, and this was accompanied byMemoirs relating to the Impeachment of Thomas, Earl of Danby. The original letters, however, of Danby to Montagu have now been published (by the Historical MSS. Commission from the MSS. of J. Eliot Hodgkin), and are seen to have been considerably garbled by Danby for the purposes of publication, several passages being obliterated and others altered by his own hand.See the lives, by Sidney Lee in theDict. Nat. Biography(1895); by T. P. Courtenay inLardner’s Encyclopaedia, “Eminent British Statesmen,” vol. v. (1850); in Lodge’sPortraits, vii.; andLives and Characters of ... Illustrious Persons, by J. le Neve (1714). Further material for his biography exists inAdd. MSS., 26040-95 (56 vols., containing his papers); in theDuke of Leeds MSS. at Hornby Castle, calendered inHist. MSS. Comm.11th Rep. pt. vii. pp. 1-43;MSS. of Earl of Lindsay and J. Eliot Hodgkin; andCalendars of State Papers Dom. See alsoAdd. MSS. 1894-1899, Index and Calendar;Hist. MSS. Comm.11th Rep. pt. ii.,House of Lords MSS.; Gen. Cat. British Museumfor various pamphlets.
In 1710 the duke had publishedCopies and Extracts of some letters written to and from the Earl of Danby ... in the years 1676, 1677 and 1678, in defence of his conduct, and this was accompanied byMemoirs relating to the Impeachment of Thomas, Earl of Danby. The original letters, however, of Danby to Montagu have now been published (by the Historical MSS. Commission from the MSS. of J. Eliot Hodgkin), and are seen to have been considerably garbled by Danby for the purposes of publication, several passages being obliterated and others altered by his own hand.
See the lives, by Sidney Lee in theDict. Nat. Biography(1895); by T. P. Courtenay inLardner’s Encyclopaedia, “Eminent British Statesmen,” vol. v. (1850); in Lodge’sPortraits, vii.; andLives and Characters of ... Illustrious Persons, by J. le Neve (1714). Further material for his biography exists inAdd. MSS., 26040-95 (56 vols., containing his papers); in theDuke of Leeds MSS. at Hornby Castle, calendered inHist. MSS. Comm.11th Rep. pt. vii. pp. 1-43;MSS. of Earl of Lindsay and J. Eliot Hodgkin; andCalendars of State Papers Dom. See alsoAdd. MSS. 1894-1899, Index and Calendar;Hist. MSS. Comm.11th Rep. pt. ii.,House of Lords MSS.; Gen. Cat. British Museumfor various pamphlets.
(P. C. Y.)
Later Dukes of Leeds.
The duke’s only surviving son, Peregrine (1659-1729), who became 2nd duke of Leeds on his father’s death, had been a member of the House of Lords as Baron Osborne since 1690, but he is better known as a naval officer; in this service he attained the rank of a vice-admiral. He died on the 25th of June 1729, when his son Peregrine Hyde (1691-1731) became 3rd duke. The 4th duke was the latter’s son Thomas (1713-1789), who was succeeded by his son Francis.
Francis Osborne, 5th duke of Leeds (1751-1799), was born on the 29th of January 1751 and was educated at Westminster school and at Christ Church, Oxford. He was a member of parliament in 1774 and 1775; in 1776 he became a peer as Baron Osborne, and in 1777 lord chamberlain of the queen’s household. In the House of Lords he was prominent as a determined foe of the prime minister, Lord North, who, after he had resigned his position as chamberlain, deprived him of the office of lord-lieutenant of the East Riding of Yorkshire in 1780. He regained this, however, two years later. Early in 1783 the marquess of Carmarthen, as he was called, was selected as ambassador to France, but he did not take up this appointment, becoming instead secretary for foreign affairs under William Pitt in December of the same year. As secretary he was little more than a cipher, and he left office in April 1791. Subsequently he took some slight part in politics, and he died in London on the 31st of January 1799. HisPolitical Memorandawere edited by Oscar Browning for the Camden Society in 1884, and there are eight volumes of his official correspondence in the British Museum. His first wife was Amelia (1754-1784), daughter of Robert Darcy, 4th earl of Holdernesse, who became Baroness Conyers in her own right in 1778. Their elder son, George William Frederick (1775-1838), succeeded his father as duke of Leeds and his mother as Baron Conyers. These titles were, however, separated when his son, Francis Godolphin Darcy, the 7th Duke (1798-1859), died without sons in May 1859. The barony passed to his nephew, Sackville George Lane-Fox (1827-1888), falling into abeyance on his death in August 1888, and the dukedom passed to his cousin, George Godolphin Osborne (1802-1872), a son of Francis Godolphin Osborne (1777-1850), who was created Baron Godolphin in 1832. In 1895 George’s grandson George Godolphin Osborne (b. 1862) became 10th duke of Leeds. The name of Godolphin, which is borne by many of the Osbornes, was introduced into the family through the marriage of the 4th duke with Mary (d. 1764), daughter and co-heiress of Francis Godolphin, 2nd earl of Godolphin, and grand-daughter of the great duke of Marlborough.
1Chronicles of London Bridge, by R. Thomson (1827), 313, quoting Stow.2Cal. of St Pap. Dom.(1673-1675), p. 449.3Letter of Morley, Bishop of Winchester, to Danby (June 10, 1676). (Hist. MSS. Com.xi. Rep. pt. vii. 14.)4Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, by Sir J. Dalrymple (1773), i. app. 104.5Letters to Sir Joseph Williamson(Camden Soc., 1874), i. 64.6Halifax note-book in Devonshire House collection, quoted in Foxcroft’sLife of Halifax, ii. 63, note.7Life of Shaftesbury, by W. D. Christie (1871), ii. 312.8Macky’sMemoirs, 46; Pepys’sDiary, viii. 143.9See the description of his position at this time by Sir W. Temple inLives of Illustrious Persons(1714), 40.10Add. MSS. 28094, f. 47.11Boyer’sAnnals(1722), 433.12The title was taken, not from Leeds in Yorkshire, but from Leeds in Kent, 4½ m. from Maidstone, which in the 17th century was a more important place than its Yorkshire namesake.13Memoirs of Sir John Macky(Roxburghe Club, 1895), 46.14Boyer’sAnnals, 219, 433.15Harleian MSS.2264, No. 239.16Boyer’sAnnals, 515.
1Chronicles of London Bridge, by R. Thomson (1827), 313, quoting Stow.
2Cal. of St Pap. Dom.(1673-1675), p. 449.
3Letter of Morley, Bishop of Winchester, to Danby (June 10, 1676). (Hist. MSS. Com.xi. Rep. pt. vii. 14.)
4Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, by Sir J. Dalrymple (1773), i. app. 104.
5Letters to Sir Joseph Williamson(Camden Soc., 1874), i. 64.
6Halifax note-book in Devonshire House collection, quoted in Foxcroft’sLife of Halifax, ii. 63, note.
7Life of Shaftesbury, by W. D. Christie (1871), ii. 312.
8Macky’sMemoirs, 46; Pepys’sDiary, viii. 143.
9See the description of his position at this time by Sir W. Temple inLives of Illustrious Persons(1714), 40.
10Add. MSS. 28094, f. 47.
11Boyer’sAnnals(1722), 433.
12The title was taken, not from Leeds in Yorkshire, but from Leeds in Kent, 4½ m. from Maidstone, which in the 17th century was a more important place than its Yorkshire namesake.
13Memoirs of Sir John Macky(Roxburghe Club, 1895), 46.
14Boyer’sAnnals, 219, 433.
15Harleian MSS.2264, No. 239.
16Boyer’sAnnals, 515.
LEEDS,a city and municipal county and parliamentary borough in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, 185 m.N.N.W. from London. Pop. (1891) 367,505; (1901) 428,968. It is served by the Great Northern railway (Central station), the Midland (Wellington station), North-Eastern and London & North-Western (New station), and Great Central and Lancashire & Yorkshire railways (Central station). It lies nearly in the centre of the Riding, in the valley of the river Aire.
The plan of the city is in no way regular, and the numerous handsome public buildings are distributed among several streets, principally on the north side of the narrow river. The town hall is a fine building in Grecian style, well placed in a square between Park Lane and Great George Street. It is of oblong shape, with a handsome façade over which rises a domed clock-tower. The principal apartment is the Victoria Hall, a richly ornamented chamber measuring 161 ft. in length, 72 in breadth and 75 in height. It was opened in 1858 by Queen Victoria. Immediately adjacent to it are the municipal offices (1884) in Italian style. The Royal Exchange (1872) in Boar Lane is an excellent Perpendicular building. In ecclesiastical architecture Leeds is not rich. The church of St John, however, is an interesting example of the junction of Gothic traditions with Renaissance tendencies in architecture. It dates from 1634 and contains some fine contemporary woodwork. St Peter’s parish church occupies an ancient site, and preserves a very early cross from the former building. The church was rebuilt in 1840 at the instance of the vicar, Dr Walter Farquhar Hook (1798-1875), afterwards dean of Chichester, whose work here in a poor and ill-educated parish brought him fame. The church of All Souls (1880) commemorates him. It may be noted that the vicarage of Leeds has in modern times commonly formed a step to the episcopal bench. There are numerous other modern churches and chapels, of which the Unitarian chapel in Park Row is noteworthy. Leeds is the seat of a Roman Catholic bishop, with a pro-cathedral dedicated to St Anne. There is a large free library in the municipal offices, and numerous branch libraries are maintained. The Leeds old library is a private institution founded in 1768 by Dr Priestley, who was then minister of the Unitarian chapel. It occupies a building in Commercial Street. The Philosophical and Literary Society, established in 1820, possesses a handsome building in Park Row, known as the Philosophical Hall, containing a laboratory, scientific library, lecture room, and museum, with excellent natural history, geological and archaeological collections. The City Art Gallery was completed in 1888, and contains a fine permanent collection, while exhibitions are also held. The University, incorporated in 1904, grew out of Yorkshire College, established in 1875 for the purpose of supplying instruction in the arts and sciences which are applicable to the manufactures, engineering, mining and agriculture of the county. In 1887 it became one of the constituent colleges of Victoria University, Manchester, and so remained until its separate incorporation. The existing building was completed in 1885, and contains a hall of residence, a central hall and library, and complete equipments in all departments of instruction. New departments have been opened in extension of the original scheme, such as the medical department (1894). A day training college is a branch of the institution. The Mechanics’ Institute (1865) occupies a handsome Italian building in Cookridge Street near the town hall. It comprises a lecture room, library, reading and class rooms; and day and evening classes and an art school are maintained. The grammar school, occupying a Gothic building (1858) at Woodhouse Moor, dates its foundation from 1552. It is largely endowed, and possesses exhibitions tenable at Oxford, Cambridge and Durham universities. There is a large training college for the Wesleyan Methodist ministry in the suburb of Headingley. The Yorkshire Ladies’ Council of Education has as its object the promotion of female education, and the instruction of girls and women of the artisan class in domestic economy, &c. The general infirmary in Great George Street is a Gothic building of brick with stone dressings with a highly ornamental exterior by Sir Gilbert Scott, of whose work this is by no means the only good example in Leeds. The city possesses further notable buildings in its market-halls, theatres, clubs, &c.
Among open spaces devoted by the corporation to public use that of Woodhouse Moor is the principal one within the city, but 3 m. N.E. of the centre is Roundhay Park, a tract of 700 acres, beautifully laid out and containing a picturesque lake. In 1889 there came into the possession of the corporation the ground, lying 3 m. up the river from the centre of the city, containing the celebrated ruins of Kirkstall Abbey. The remains of this great foundation, of the middle of the 12th century, are extensive, and so far typical of the usual arrangement of Cistercian houses as to be described under the heading Abbey. The ruins are carefully preserved, and form a remarkable contrast with the surrounding industrial district. Apart from Kirkstall there are few antiquarian remains in the locality. In Guildford Street, near the town hall, is the Red Hall, where Charles I. lay during his enforced journey under the charge of the army in 1647.
For manufacturing and commercial purposes the situation of Leeds is highly advantageous. It occupies a central position in the railway system of England. It has communication with Liverpool by the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, and with Goole and the Humber by the Aire and Calder Navigation. It is moreover the centre of an important coal and iron district. Though regarded as the capital of the great manufacturing district of the West Riding, Leeds is not in its centre but on its border. Eastward and northward the country is agricultural, but westward and southward lies a mass of manufacturing towns. The characteristic industry is the woollen manufacture. The industry is carried on in a great number of neighbouring townships, but the cloth is commonly finished or dressed in the city itself, this procedure differing from that of the wool manufacturers in Gloucestershire and the west of England, who carry out the entire process in one factory. Formerly much of the business between manufacturer and merchant was transacted in the cloth halls, which formed a kind of market, but merchants now order goods directly from the manufacturers. Artificial silk is important among the textile products. Subsidiary to these leading industries is the production of machine-made clothing, hats and caps. The leather trade of Leeds is the largest in England, though no sole leather is tanned. The supply comes chiefly from British India. Boots and shoes are extensively manufactured. The iron trade in its different branches rivals the woollen trade in wealth, including the casting of metal, and the manufacture of steam engines, steam wagons, steam ploughs, machinery, tools, nails, &c. Leeds was formerly famed for the production of artistic pottery, and specimens of old Leeds ware are highly prized. The industry lapsed about the end of the 18th century, but has been revived in modern times. Minor and less specialized industries are numerous.
The parliamentary borough is divided into five divisions (North, Central, South, East and West), each returning one member. The county borough was created in 1888. Leeds was raised to the rank of a city in 1893. The municipal borough is under a lord mayor (the title was conferred in 1897 on the occasion of Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee), 16 aldermen and 48 councillors. Area, 21,572 acres.
Leeds (Loidis, Ledes) is mentioned by Bede as the district where the Northumbrian kings had a royal vill in 627, and where Oswy, king of Northumbria, defeated Penda, king of the Mercians, in 665. Before the Norman Conquest seven thanes held it of Edward the Confessor as seven manors, but William the Conqueror granted the whole to Ilbert de Lacy, and at the time of the Domesday Survey it was held of him by Ralph Paganel, who is said to have raised Leeds castle, possibly on the site of an earlier fortification. In 1207 Maurice Paganel constituted the inhabitants of Leeds free burgesses, granting them the same liberties as Robert de Lacy had granted to Pontefract, including the right of selling burgher land to whom they pleased except to religious houses, and freedom from toll. He also appointed as the chief officer of the town a reeve who was to be chosen by the lord of the manor, the burgesses being “more eligible if only they would pay as much as others for the office.” The town was incorporated by Charles I. in 1626 under the title of an alderman, 7 principal burgesses and 24 assistants. A second charter granted by Charles II. in 1661 appointed a mayor, 12 aldermen and 24 assistants, and is still the governing charter of the borough. The woollen manufacture is said to have been introduced into Leeds in the 14th century, and owing to the facilities for trade afforded by its position on the river Aire soon became an importantindustry. Camden, writing about 1590, says, “Leeds is rendered wealthy by its woollen manufactures,” and the incorporation charter of 1626 recites that “the inhabitants have for a long time exercised the art of making cloth.” The cloth was then, as it is now, made in the neighbouring villages and only finished and sold in the town. A successful attempt was made in the beginning of the 19th century by Mr William Hirst to introduce goods of a superior quality which were made and finished in his own factory. Other manufacturers followed his example, but their factories are now only used for the finishing process. The worsted trade which was formerly carried on to some extent has now almost disappeared. The spinning of flax by machinery was introduced early in the 19th century by Mr John Marshall, a Holbeck manufacturer, who was one of the first to apply Sir Richard Arkwright’s water frame, invented for cotton manufacture, to the spinning of linen yarn. The burgesses were represented in parliament by one member during the Commonwealth, but not again until by the Reform Act of 1832 they were allowed to return two members. In 1867 they were granted an additional member.See James Wardell,The Municipal History of the Borough of Leeds(1846); J. D. Whitaker,Loidis and Elmete: or an Attempt to illustrate the Districts described in these words by Bede(1816); D. H. Atkinson,Ralph Thoresby, the Topographer; his Town (Leeds) and Times(1885-1887).
Leeds (Loidis, Ledes) is mentioned by Bede as the district where the Northumbrian kings had a royal vill in 627, and where Oswy, king of Northumbria, defeated Penda, king of the Mercians, in 665. Before the Norman Conquest seven thanes held it of Edward the Confessor as seven manors, but William the Conqueror granted the whole to Ilbert de Lacy, and at the time of the Domesday Survey it was held of him by Ralph Paganel, who is said to have raised Leeds castle, possibly on the site of an earlier fortification. In 1207 Maurice Paganel constituted the inhabitants of Leeds free burgesses, granting them the same liberties as Robert de Lacy had granted to Pontefract, including the right of selling burgher land to whom they pleased except to religious houses, and freedom from toll. He also appointed as the chief officer of the town a reeve who was to be chosen by the lord of the manor, the burgesses being “more eligible if only they would pay as much as others for the office.” The town was incorporated by Charles I. in 1626 under the title of an alderman, 7 principal burgesses and 24 assistants. A second charter granted by Charles II. in 1661 appointed a mayor, 12 aldermen and 24 assistants, and is still the governing charter of the borough. The woollen manufacture is said to have been introduced into Leeds in the 14th century, and owing to the facilities for trade afforded by its position on the river Aire soon became an importantindustry. Camden, writing about 1590, says, “Leeds is rendered wealthy by its woollen manufactures,” and the incorporation charter of 1626 recites that “the inhabitants have for a long time exercised the art of making cloth.” The cloth was then, as it is now, made in the neighbouring villages and only finished and sold in the town. A successful attempt was made in the beginning of the 19th century by Mr William Hirst to introduce goods of a superior quality which were made and finished in his own factory. Other manufacturers followed his example, but their factories are now only used for the finishing process. The worsted trade which was formerly carried on to some extent has now almost disappeared. The spinning of flax by machinery was introduced early in the 19th century by Mr John Marshall, a Holbeck manufacturer, who was one of the first to apply Sir Richard Arkwright’s water frame, invented for cotton manufacture, to the spinning of linen yarn. The burgesses were represented in parliament by one member during the Commonwealth, but not again until by the Reform Act of 1832 they were allowed to return two members. In 1867 they were granted an additional member.
See James Wardell,The Municipal History of the Borough of Leeds(1846); J. D. Whitaker,Loidis and Elmete: or an Attempt to illustrate the Districts described in these words by Bede(1816); D. H. Atkinson,Ralph Thoresby, the Topographer; his Town (Leeds) and Times(1885-1887).
LEEK,a market town in the Leek parliamentary division of Staffordshire, England, 157 m. N.W. from London, on the Churnet Valley branch of the North Staffordshire railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 15,484. The town lies high in a picturesque situation near the head of the river Churnet. The church of St Edward the Confessor is mainly Decorated, and stands in a churchyard commanding a beautiful view from an elevation of some 640 ft. There is here a curious pillar of Danish work ornately carved. An institute contains a free library, lecture hall, art gallery and school of art. A grammar school was established in 1723. In the vicinity are ruins of the Cistercian abbey De la Croix, or Dieulacresse, erected in 1214 by Ralph de Blundevill, earl of Chester. The slight remains are principally embodied in a farm-house. The silk manufacture includes sewing silk, braids, silk buttons, &c. Cloud Hill, rising to 1190 ft. W. of the town, causes a curious phenomenon in the height of summer, the sun sinking behind one flank to reappear beyond the other, and thus appearing to set twice.
Leek (Lee, Leike, Leeke) formed part of the great estates of Ælfgar, earl of Mercia; it escheated to William the Conqueror who held it at the time of the Domesday Survey. Later it passed to the earls Palatine of Chester, remaining in their hands until Ralph de Blundevill, earl of Chester, gave it to the abbey of Dieulacresse, which continued to hold it until its dissolution. The same earl in a charter which he gave to the town (temp.John) calls it a borough and grants to his free burgesses various privileges, including freedom from toll throughout Cheshire. These privileges were confirmed by Richard, abbot of Dieulacresse, but the town received no royal charter and failed to establish its burghal position. The Wednesday market which is still held dates from a grant of John to the earl of Chester: in the 17th century it was very considerable. A fair, also granted by John, beginning on the third day before the Translation of Edward the Confessor is still held. The silk manufacture which can be traced to the latter part of the 17th century is thought to have been aided by the settlement in Leek of some Huguenots after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. In the 17th and 18th centuries the town was famous for its ale. Prince Charles Edward passed through Leek on his march to Derby (1745) and again on his return journey to Scotland. A story in connexion with the Civil Wars is told to explain the expression “Now thus” occurring on the tombstone of a citizen, who by this meaningless answer to all questions sought escape on the plea of insanity.
LEEK,theAllium Porrumof botanists, a plant now considered as a mere variety ofAllium Ampeloprasum, wild leek, produced by cultivation. The plant is probably of Eastern origin, since it was commonly cultivated in Egypt in the time of the Pharaohs, and is so to the present day; while as regards its first appearance in England both Tusser and Gerard—two of the earliest writers on this class of subjects, the former of whom flourished in the early part and the latter in the later part of the 16th century—speak of it as being then commonly cultivated and used.1The Romans, it would appear, made great use of the leek for savouring their dishes, as seems proved by the number of recipes for its use referred to by Celsius. Hence it is more than probable that it was brought to England by the Romans. Italy was celebrated for leeks in the time of Pliny (H.N.xix. c. 6), according to whom they were brought into great esteem through the emperor Nero, derisively surnamed “Porrophagus,” who used to eat them for several days in every month to clear his voice. The leek is very generally cultivated in Great Britain as an esculent, but more especially in Scotland and in Wales, being esteemed as an excellent and wholesome vegetable, with properties very similar to those of the onion, but of a milder character. In America it is not much cultivated except by market gardeners in the neighbourhood of large cities. The whole plant, with the exception of the fibrous roots, is used in soups and stews. The sheathing stalks of the leaves lap over each other, and form a thickish stem-like base, which is blanched, and is the part chiefly preferred. These blanched stems are much employed in French cookery. They form an important ingredient in Scotch winter broth, and particularly in the national dishcock-a-leekie, and are also largely used boiled, and served with toasted bread and white sauce, as in the case of asparagus. Leeks are sown in the spring, earlier or later according to the soil and the season, and are planted out for the summer, being dropped into holes made with a stout dibble and left unfilled in order to allow the stems space to swell. When they are thus planted deeply the holes gradually fill up, and the base of the stem becomes blanched and prepared for use, a process aided by drawing up the earth round about the stems as they elongate. The leek is one of the most useful vegetables the cottager can grow, as it will supply him with a large amount of produce during the winter and spring. It is extremely hardy, and presents no difficulty in its cultivation, the chief point, as with all succulent esculents, being that it should be grown quickly upon well-enriched soil. The plant is of biennial duration, flowering the second year, and perishing after perfecting its seeds. The leek is the national symbol or badge of the Welsh, who wear it in their hats on St David’s Day. The origin of this custom has received various explanations, all of which are more or less speculative.