Part 32

Apart from books, a large and important amount of the literature on Durer is contained in articles scattered through the leading art periodicals of Germany, such as the _Jahrbucher_ of the Berlin and Vienna museums, _Repertorium fur Kunstwissenschaft_, _Zeitschrift fur bildende Kunst_, &c. A comprehensive survey of this literature is afforded by Prof. H.W. Singer's _Versuch einer Durer-Bibliographie_ (Strassburg, 1903); articles published more recently will be found completely enumerated in A. Jellinek's _Internationale Bibliographie der Kunstwissenschaft_ (Berlin). (S. C.)

DURESS (through Fr. from Lat. _duritia_, harshness, severity, _durus_, hard), in law, constraint or compulsion. Duress may be of two kinds. It may consist in personal restraint or actual violence or imprisonment; or it may be by threats (_per minas_), as where a person is compelled to an act by threats of immediate death or grievous bodily harm. Duress, in certain cases, may be pleaded as a defence of an act which would otherwise be a crime, but the extent to which the plea of duress can be urged is unascertained. At common law a contract entered into under duress is voidable at the option of one of the parties. See COERCION, CONTRACT.

D'URFEY, THOMAS (1653-1723), better known as Tom d'Urfey, English song-writer and dramatist, belonged to a Huguenot family settled at Exeter, where he was born in 1653. Honore d'Urfe, the author of _Astree_, was his uncle. His first play, _The Siege of Memphis, or the Ambitious Queen_, a bombastic rhymed tragedy, was produced at the Theatre Royal in 1676. He was much more successful with his comedies, which had brisk, complicated plots carried out in lively dialogue. He had a light touch for fitting words on current topics to popular airs; moreover, many of his songs were set to music by his friends Dr John Blow, Henry Purcell and Thomas Farmer. Many of these songs were introduced into his plays. Addison in the _Guardian_ (No. 67) relates that he remembered to have seen Charles II. leaning on Tom d'Urfey's shoulder and humming a song with him. Even William III. liked to hear him sing his songs, and as a strong Tory he was sure of the favour of Princess Anne, who is said to have given Tom fifty guineas for a song on the Electress Sophia, the next heir in succession to the crown. "The crown's far too weighty, for shoulders of eighty," said d'Urfey, with an indirect compliment to the princess, "So Providence kept her away,--poor old Dowager Sophy." Pope, in an amusing letter to Henry Cromwell (_Works_, ed. Elwin and Courthope, vi. 91) describes him as "the only poet of tolerable reputation in this country." In spite of the success of his numerous comedies he was poor in his old age. But his gaiety and invincible good humour had made him friends in the craft, and by the influence of Addison his _Fond Husband, or The Plotting Sisters_ was revived for d'Urfey's benefit at Drury Lane on the 15th of June 1713. This performance, for which Pope wrote a prologue full of rather faint praise, seems to have eased the poet's difficulties. He died on the 26th of February 1723, and was buried in St James's Church, Piccadilly.

Collections of his songs with the music appeared during his lifetime, the most complete being the 1719-1720 edition (6 vols.) of _Wit and Mirth; or Pills to Purge Melancholy_. The best known of the twenty-nine pieces of his which actually found their way to the stage were _Love for Money; or The Boarding School_ (Theatre Royal, 1691), _The Marriage-Hater Match'd_ (1692), and _The Comical History of Don Quixote_, in three parts (1694, 1694 and 1696), which earned the especial censure of Jeremy Collier. In his burlesque opera, _Wonders in the Sun; or the Kingdom of the Birds_ (1706, music by G.B. Draghi), the actors were dressed as parrots, crows, &c.

DURFORT, a village of south-western France, formerly in the province of Guienne, now in the department of Tarn-et-Garonne, 18 m. N.W. of Montauban by road. It was at one time the seat of a feudal lordship which gave its name to a family distinguished in French and English history. Though earlier lords are known, the pedigree of the family is only clearly traceable to Arnaud de Durfort (fl. 1305), who acquired the fief of Duras by his marriage with a niece of Pope Clement V. His descendant, Gaillard de Durfort, having embraced the side of the king of England, went to London in 1453, and was made governor of Calais and a knight of the Garter.

The greatness of the family dates, however, from the 17th century. Guy Aldonce (1605-1665), marquis de Duras and comte de Rozan, had, by his wife Elizabeth de la Tour d'Auvergne, sister of Marshal Turenne, six sons, three of whom played a distinguished part. The eldest, Jacques Henri (1625-1704), was governor of Franche Comte in 1674 and was created a marshal of France for his share in the conquest of that province (1675). The second, Guy Aldonce (1630-1702), comte de Lorges and duc de Quintin (known as the duc de Lorges), became a marshal of France in 1676, commanded the army in Germany from 1690 to 1695, and captured Heidelberg in 1693. The sixth son, Louis (1640?-1709), marquis de Blanquefort, came to England in the suite of James, duke of York, in 1663, and was naturalized in the same year. On the 19th of January 1672-1673 he was raised to the English peerage as Baron Duras of Holdenby, his title being derived from an estate in Northamptonshire bought from the duke of York, and in 1676 he married Mary, daughter and elder co-heiress of Sir George Sondes, created in that year Baron Throwley, Viscount Sondes and earl of Feversham. On the death of his father-in-law (16th of April 1677), Duras succeeded to his titles under a special remainder. He was appointed by Charles II. successively to the command of the third and second troops of Horse Guards, was sent abroad on several important diplomatic missions, and became master of the horse (1679) and lord chamberlain to the queen (1680). In 1682 he was appointed a lord of the bed-chamber, and was present at the king's deathbed reconciliation with the Roman Church. Under James II. Feversham became a member of the privy council, and in 1685 was given the chief command against the rebels under Monmouth (q.v.), in which he mainly distinguished himself by his cruelty to the vanquished. He was rewarded with a knighthood of the Garter and the colonelcy of the first troop of Life Guards, and in 1686 he was appointed to the command of the army assembled by King James on Blackheath to overawe the people. On James's flight, Feversham succeeded in making his peace with William, on the intercession of the queen dowager, at whose instance he received the mastership of the Royal Hospital of St Catherine near the Tower (1698). He died without issue on the 8th of April 1709. [See G.E. C(ockayne), _Complete Peerage_, and art. in _Dict. Nat. Biog._]

Jean Baptiste (1684-1770), due de Duras, son of Jacques Henri, was also a marshal of France. In 1733 he resigned the dukedom of Duras to his son, Emmanuel Felicite, himself receiving the brevet title of duc de Durfort. Emmanuel Felicite (1715-1789), duc de Duras, took part in all the wars of Louis XV. and was made a marshal of France in 1775. His grandson, Amedee Bretagne Malo (1771-1838), duc de Duras, is mainly known as the husband of Claire Louise Rose Bonne de Coetnempren de Kersaint (1778-1828), daughter of Armand Guy Simon de Coetnempren Kersaint (q.v.), who, as duchesse de Duras, presided over a once celebrated salon and wrote several novels once widely read.

The family of Durfort is represented in France now by the branch of Durfort-Civrac, dating from the 16th century. Jean Laurent (1740-1826), marquis de Civrac, married his cousin, the daughter of the duc de Lorges; his son, Guy Emeric Anne (1767-1837), duc de Civrac, became afterwards duc de Lorges. Henri, marquis de Durfort-Civrac (1812-1884), was a well-known politician, and was several times elected vice-president of the chamber of deputies.

DURGA, or DEVI (Sanskrit for inaccessible), in Hindu mythology, the wife of Siva (q.v.) and daughter of Himavat (the Himalayas). She has many names and many characters. As Durga (so named from having slain the demon Durga) she is warlike and ferocious, and to her in this form are offered bloody sacrifices, and such ceremonies as the Durgapuja and Churrukpuga are held in her honour (see KALI). The chief festival in Bengal--sometimes termed the Christmas of Bengal--celebrates the goddess's birth in the sixth Hindu month (parts of September and October). Durga is pictured, in spite of her fierce nature, with a gentle face. She has ten arms, holding each a weapon, while her attendant lions and giants are grouped on each side.

DURHAM, JOHN GEORGE LAMBTON, 1ST EARL OF (1792-1840), English statesman, son of William Henry Lambton of Lambton Castle, Durham, was born in London on the 12th of April 1792. His mother was Anne Barbara Villiers, daughter of the 4th earl of Jersey. Lambton was only five years old when by his father's death at Pisa (1797) he succeeded to large estates in the north of England which had been in the uninterrupted possession of his family since the 12th century. In 1805 he went to Eton, and in 1809 obtained a commission in the 10th Hussars. In 1812, while still a minor, he made a runaway match with Henrietta, natural daughter of Lord Cholmondeley, whom he married at Gretna Green, and who died in 1815. In 1813 he was elected to the House of Commons as member for the county of Durham. Whig principles of a pronounced type were traditional in Lambton's family. His grandfather, General John Lambton, had refused a peerage in 1793 out of loyalty to Fox, and his father was not only one of Pitt's keenest opponents, but was chairman of "The Friends of the People" and author of that society's address to the nation in 1792. Lambton adhered to this tradition, and soon developed opinions of an extremely Radical type, which he fearlessly put forward in parliament and in the country with marked ability. His maiden speech in the House of Commons was directed against the foreign policy of Lord Liverpool's government, who had sanctioned, and helped to enforce, the annexation of Norway by Sweden. In 1815 he vehemently opposed the corn tax, and in general began to take a prominent part in opposition to the Tories. In 1816 he made the acquaintance of Lafayette in Paris, and narrowly escaped arrest for alleged complicity in his escape. In 1817 he began to speak on every opportunity in favour of parliamentary reform.

His political position was strengthened by his marriage in December 1816 to Louisa Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Lord Grey, and as early as 1818 he was taken into the political confidence of his father-in-law and other leaders of the Whigs in matters touching the leadership and policy of the party. But from the first Lambton belonged to the avowedly Radical wing of the party, with whose aims Grey had little sympathy; and when he gave notice of a resolution in 1819 in favour of shortening the duration of parliaments, and of a wide extension of the franchise, he found himself discountenanced by old Whigs like Grey, Holland and Fitzwilliam. Having warmly espoused the cause of Queen Caroline, Lambton ably seconded Lord Tavistock's resolution in February 1821 censuring the government for their conduct towards the queen; and in April he made his first great speech in the House of Commons on parliamentary reform, when he proposed a scheme for the extension of the suffrage to all holders of property, the division of the country into electoral districts and the disfranchisement of rotten boroughs. He was now one of the recognized leaders of the advanced Liberals, forming a connecting link between the aristocratic Whig leaders and the irresponsible and often violent politicians of the great towns. His opposition to those members of his party who in 1825 were prepared for compromise on the question of Catholic emancipation led to his first conflict with Brougham, with whom he had been on terms of close friendship. While supporting the candidature of his brother-in-law, Lord Howick, for Northumberland in the elections of 1826, Lambton fought a duel with T.W. Beaumont, the Tory candidate, but without bloodshed on either side. Unlike his father-in-law, Lambton supported the ministry of Canning, though he had some grounds for personal grievance against the new prime minister, and after Canning's death that of Lord Goderich. On the advice of the latter Lambton was raised to the peerage in 1828 with the title of Baron Durham. Owing to his Liberal principles Lord Durham was on terms of friendship with the duke of Sussex, and also with Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who sought his advice in the difficult crisis in 1829 when he was offered the throne of Greece, and who, after he became king of the Belgians as Leopold I., continued to correspond with Durham as a trusted confidant; the same confidential relations also existed between Durham and Leopold's sister, the duchess of Kent, and her daughter, afterwards Queen Victoria.

In November 1830 when Grey became prime minister in succession to the duke of Wellington, Lord Durham entered the cabinet as lord privy seal. Parliamentary reform was in the forefront of the new government's policy, and with this question no statesman except Lord Grey himself was more closely indentified than Durham. To ardent reformers in the country the presence in the cabinet of "Radical Jack," the name by which Lambton had been popularly known in the north of England, was a pledge that thorough-going reform would not be shirked by the Whigs, now in office for the first time for twenty years. And it was to his son-in-law that Lord Grey confided the task of preparing a scheme to serve as the basis of the proposed legislation. Full justice has not generally been done to the leading part played by Lord Durham in preparing the great Reform Act. He was the chief author of the proposals which, after being defeated in 1831, became law with little alteration in 1832. He was chairman of the famous committee of four, which met at his house in Cleveland Row and drew up the scheme submitted by the government to parliament. His colleagues, who were appointed rather as his assistants than as his equals, were Lord John Russell, Sir James Graham and Lord Duncannon; and it was Durham who selected Lord John Russell, not then in the cabinet, to introduce the bill in the House of Commons; a selection that was hotly opposed by Brougham, whose later vindictive animosity against Durham is to be traced to his having been passed over in the selection of the committee of four. Durham was present with Grey at an audience of the king which led to the sudden dissolution of parliament in March 1831; and when the deadlock between the two Houses occurred over the second Reform Bill, he was the most eager in pressing on the prime minister the necessity for a creation of peers to overcome the resistance of the house of Lords.

After the passing of the Reform Act, Durham, whose health was bad and who had suffered the loss of two of his children, accepted a special and difficult diplomatic mission to Russia, which he carried out with much tact and ability, though without accomplishing its main purpose. On his return he resigned office in March 1833, ostensibly for reasons of health, but in reality owing to his disagreement with the government's Irish policy as conducted by Lord Stanley; in the same month he was created earl of Durham and Viscount Lambton. His advanced opinions, in the assertion of which he was too little disposed to consider the convictions of others, gradually alienated the more moderate of his late colleagues, such as Melbourne and Palmerston, and even Lord Grey often found his son-in-law intractable and self-assertive; but the growing hostility of the treacherous Brougham was mainly due to Durham's undoubted popularity in the country, where he was regarded by many, including J.S. Mill, as Grey's probable successor in the leadership of the Liberal party. Durham was at this time courted by the youthful Disraeli, who, when Melbourne became prime minister in succession to Grey in 1834, declared that the Whigs could not exist as a party without Lord Durham. Brougham's animosity became undisguised at the great banquet given to Lord Grey at Edinburgh in September 1834, where he made a venomous attack on Durham, repeated shortly afterwards at Salisbury, and anonymously in the _Edinburgh Review_. On the other hand the strength of Durham's position in the country was shown on the occasion of his visit to Glasgow in October to receive the freedom of the city, when a concourse of more than a hundred thousand persons assembled to hear him speak at Glasgow Green, and where he replied to Brougham's attacks at a great banquet held in his honour. Brougham had over-reached himself; and although Durham was no favourite with William IV., the king's disgust with the lord chancellor was one of the principal reasons for his summary dismissal of the Whig ministry in 1834. When Melbourne returned to power after Peel's short administration, Durham's radicalism and impatient temper excluded him from the cabinet; and again in 1837, on his return from an appointment as ambassador extraordinary in St Petersburg (1835-1837), when there was some idea of his joining the ministry, Lord John Russell wrote: "Everybody, after the experience we have had, must doubt whether there can be peace or harmony in a cabinet of which Lord Durham is a member."

In July 1837 he resisted the entreaty of Lord Melbourne that he should undertake the government of Canada, where the condition of affairs had become alarming; but a few months later, giving way to the urgent insistence of the prime minister who promised him "the firmest and most unflinching support" of the government, he accepted the post of governor-general and lord high commissioner, with the almost dictatorial powers conferred on him by an act passed in February 1838, by which the constitution of Lower Canada was suspended for two years. Having secured the services of Charles Buller (q.v.) as first secretary, and having with more doubtful wisdom appointed Thomas Turton and Edward Gibbon Wakefield (q.v.) to be his unofficial assistants, Durham arrived at Quebec on the 28th of May 1838. Papineau's rebellion had been quelled, but the French Canadians were sullen, the attitude of the United States equivocal, and the general situation dangerous, especially in the Lower Province where government was practically in abeyance. Durham at once issued a conciliatory proclamation. His next step was to dismiss the executive council of his predecessor and to appoint a new one consisting of men uncommitted to any existing faction, a step much criticized at home but generally commended on the spot. On the 28th of June, the day of Queen Victoria's coronation, he issued a proclamation of amnesty, from the benefit of which eight persons only of those who had taken part in the rebellion were excepted; while an accompanying ordinance provided for the transference of these eight excepted persons from Montreal to Bermuda, where they were to be imprisoned without trial. Papineau and fifteen other fugitives were forbidden on pain of death to return to Canada. In a letter of congratulation to the queen, Durham took credit for the clemency of his policy towards the rebels, and it was defended on the same ground by Charles Buller and by public opinion in the colony.

In England, however, as soon as these proceedings became known, Brougham seized the opportunity for venting his malice against both Durham and the ministry. He had already raised objections to the appointment of Turton and Wakefield; he now attacked the ordinance in the House of Lords, challenging the legality of the clause transporting prisoners to Bermuda, where Durham had no jurisdiction. Melbourne and his colleagues, with the honourable exception of Lord John Russell, made little effort to defend the public servant to whom they had promised "the most unflinching support"; and, although both the prime minister and the colonial secretary when first fully informed of the governor-general's proceedings had hastened to assure him of their "entire approval," three weeks later, cowed by Brougham's malignant invective, they disallowed the ordinance, and carried an Act of Indemnity the terms of which were insulting to Durham. The latter immediately resigned; but before returning to England he put himself in the wrong by issuing a proclamation in which he not only justified his own conduct in detail, but made public complaint of his grievances against the ministers of the Crown, a step that alienated much sympathy which his unjust treatment by the government would otherwise have called forth, though it was defended by men like Charles Buller and J.S. Mill. The usual official honours given to a returning plenipotentiary were not accorded to Durham on his arrival at Plymouth on the 30th of November 1838, but the populace received him with acclamation. He immediately set about preparing his memorable "Report on the Affairs of British North America," which was laid before parliament on the 31st of January 1839. This report, one of the greatest state papers in the English language, laid down the principles, then unrecognized, which have guided British colonial policy ever since. It was not written or composed by Charles Buller, as Brougham was the first to suggest, and the credit for the statesmanship it exhibits is Lord Durham's alone, though he warmly acknowledged the assistance he had derived from Buller, Wakefield and others in preparing the materials on which it was based. With regard to the future government of British North America, Durham had at first inclined towards a federation of all the colonies on that continent, and this aim, afterwards achieved, remained in his eyes an ideal to be striven for; but as a more immediately practical policy he advised the legislative union of Upper and Lower Canada, his avowed aim being to organize a single state in which the British inhabitants would be in a majority. He further urged the creation of an executive council responsible to the colonial legislature; he advised state-aided emigration on the broadest possible scale, and the formation of an intercolonial railway for the development of the whole country. Meantime Durham, who almost alone among the statesmen of his time saw the importance of imperial expansion, interested himself in the emigration schemes of Gibbon Wakefield (q.v.); he became chairman of the New Zealand Company, and was thus concerned in the enterprise which forestalled France in asserting sovereignty over the islands of New Zealand in September 1839. His health, however, had long been failing, and he died at Cowes on the 28th of July 1840, just five days after the royal assent had been given to the bill giving effect to his project for uniting Upper and Lower Canada.