Chapter II: Sphere of Government (1)

The action of the state, or sovereign power, or government in a civilized community shapes itself into the threefold functions of legislation, judicature and administration. The two first are perfectly well-defined, and the last includes all the kinds of state action not included in the other two. It is with reference to legislation and administration that the line of permissible state-action requires to be drawn. There is no doubt about the province of the judicature, and that function of government may therefore be dismissed with a very few observations.

The complete separation of the three functions marks a high point of social organization. In simple societies the same officers discharge all the duties which we divide between the legislator, the administrator and the judge. The acts themselves are not consciously recognized as being of different kinds. The evolution of all the parts of a highly complex government from one original is illustrated in a striking way by the history of English institutions. All the conspicuous parts of the modern government, however little they may resemble each other now, can be followed back without a break to their common origin. Parliament, the cabinet, the privy council, the courts of law, all carry us back to the same _nidus_ in the council of the feudal king.

_Judicature._--The business of judicature, requiring as it does the possession of a high degree of technical skill and knowledge, is generally entrusted by the sovereign body or people to a separate and independent class of functionaries. In England the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords still maintains in theory the connexion between the supreme legislative and the supreme judicial functions. In some states of the American Union certain judicial functions of the upper house were for a time maintained after the example of the English constitution as it existed when the states were founded. In England there is also still a considerable amount of judicial work in which the people takes its share. The inferior magistracies, except in populous places, are in the hands of private persons. And by the jury system the ascertainment of fact has been committed in very large measure to persons selected indiscriminately from the mass of the people, subject to a small property qualification. But the higher functions of the judicature are exercised by persons whom the law has jealously fenced off from external interference and control. The independence of the bench distinguishes the English system from every other. It was established in principle as a barrier against monarchical power, and hence has become one of the traditional ensigns of popular government. In many of the American states the spirit of democracy has demanded the subjection of the judiciary to popular control. The judges are elected directly by the people, and hold office for a short term, instead of being appointed, as in England, by the responsible executive, and removable only by a vote of the two Houses. At the same time the constitution of the United States has assigned to the supreme court of the Union a perfectly unique position. The supreme court is the guardian of the constitution (as are the state courts of the constitution of the states: see UNITED STATES). It has to judge whether a measure passed by the legislative powers is not void by reason of being unconstitutional, and it may therefore have to veto the deliberate resolutions of both Houses of Congress and the president. It is admitted that this singular experiment in government has been completely justified by its success.

_Limits of State Interference in Legislation and Administration._--The question of the limits of state action does not arise with reference to the judiciary. The enforcement of the laws is a duty which the sovereign power must of absolute necessity take upon itself. But to what conduct of the citizens the laws shall extend is the most perplexing of all political questions. The correlative question with regard to the executive would be what works of public convenience should the state undertake through its own servants. The whole question of the sphere of government may be stated in these two questions: What should the state do for its citizens? and How far should the state interfere with the action of its citizens? These questions are the direct outcome of modern popular government; they are equally unknown to the small democracies of ancient times and to despotic governments at all times. Accordingly ancient political philosophy, rich as it is in all kinds of suggestions, has very little to say that has any bearing on the sphere of government. The conception that the power of the state can be and ought to be limited belongs to the times of "government by discussion," to use Bagehot's expression,--to the time when the sovereign number is divided by class interests, and when the action of the majority has to be carried out in the face of strong minorities, capable of making themselves heard. Aristotle does indeed dwell on one aspect of the question. He would limit the action of the government in the sense of leaving as little as possible to the personal will of the governors, whether one or many. His maxim is that the law should reign. But that the sphere of law itself should be restricted, otherwise than by general principles of morality, is a consideration wholly foreign to ancient philosophy. The state is conceived as acting like a just man, and justice in the state is the same thing as justice in the individual. The Greek institutions which the philosophers are unanimous in commending are precisely those which the most state-ridden nations of modern times would agree in repudiating. The exhaustive discussion of all political measures, which for over two centuries has been a fixed habit of English public life, has of itself established the principle that there are assignable limits to the action of the state. Not that the limits ever have been assigned in terms, but popular sentiment has more or less vaguely fenced off departments of conduct as sacred from the interference of the law. Phrases like "the liberty of the subject," the "sanctity of private property," "an Englishman's house is his castle," "the rights of conscience," are the commonplaces of political discussion, and tell the state, "Thus far shalt thou go and no further."

The two contrasting policies are those of _laissez-faire_ (let alone) and Protection, or individualism and state-socialism, the one a policy of non-interference with the free play of social forces, the other of their regulation for the benefit of the community. The _laissez-faire_ theory was prominently upheld by John Stuart Mill, whose essay on _Liberty_, together with the concluding chapters of his treatise on _Political Economy_, gives a tolerably complete view of the principles of government. There is a general presumption against the interference of government, which is only to be overcome by very strong evidence of necessity. Governmental action is generally less effective than voluntary action. The necessary duties of government are so burdensome, that to increase them destroys its efficiency. Its powers are already so great that individual freedom is constantly in danger. As a general rule, nothing which can be done by the voluntary agency of individuals should be left to the state. Each man is the best judge of his own interests. But, on the other hand, when the thing itself is admitted to be useful or necessary, and it cannot be effected by voluntary agency, or when it is of such a nature that the consumer cannot be considered capable of judging of the quality supplied, then Mill would allow the state to interpose. Thus the education of children, and even of adults, would fairly come within the province of the state. Mill even goes so far as to admit that, where a restriction of the hours of labour, or the establishment of a periodical holiday, is proved to be beneficial to labourers as a class, but cannot be carried out voluntarily on account of the refusal of individuals to co-operate, government may justifiably compel them to co-operate. Still further, Mill would desire to see some control exercised by the government over the operations of those voluntary associations which, consisting of large numbers of shareholders, necessarily leave their affairs in the hands of one or a few persons. In short, Mill's general rule against state action admits of many important exceptions, founded on no principle less vague than that of public expediency. The essay on _Liberty_ is mainly concerned with freedom of individual character, and its arguments apply to control exercised, not only by the state, but by society in the form of public opinion. The leading principle is that of Humboldt, "the absolute and essential importance of human development in its richest diversity." Humboldt broadly excluded education, religion and morals from the action, direct and indirect, of the state. Mill, as we have seen, conceives education to be within the province of the state, but he would confine its action to compelling parents to educate their children.

The most thoroughgoing opponent of state action, however, is Herbert Spencer. In his _Social Statics_, published in 1850, he holds it to be the essential duty of government to _protect_--to maintain men's rights to life, to personal liberty and to property; and the theory that the government ought to undertake other offices besides that of protector he regards as an untenable theory. Each man has a right to the fullest exercise of all his faculties, compatible with the same right in others. This is the fundamental law of equal freedom, which it is the duty and the only duty of the state to enforce. If the state goes beyond this duty, it becomes, not a protector, but an aggressor. Thus all state regulations of commerce, all religious establishments, all government relief of the poor, all state systems of education and of sanitary superintendence, even the state currency and the post-office, stand condemned, not only as ineffective for their respective purposes, but as involving violations of man's natural liberty.

The tendency of modern legislation is more a question of political practice than of political theory. In some cases state interference has been abolished or greatly limited. These cases are mainly two--in matters of opinion (especially religious opinion), and in matters of contract.

The mere enumeration of the individual instances would occupy a
formidable amount of space. The reader is referred to such articles as
ENGLAND, CHURCH OF; ESTABLISHMENT; MARRIAGE; OATH; ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH, &c., and COMPANY; CONTRACT; PARTNERSHIP, &c. In other cases
the state has interfered for the protection and assistance of definite
classes of persons. For example, the education and protection of
children (see CHILDREN, LAW RELATING TO; EDUCATION; TECHNICAL
EDUCATION); the regulation of factory labour and dangerous employment
(see LABOUR LEGISLATION); improved conditions of health (see
ADULTERATION; HOUSING; PUBLIC HEALTH, LAW OF, &c.); coercion for moral
purposes (see BET AND BETTING; CRIMINAL LAW; GAMING AND WAGERING;
LIQUOR LAWS; LOTTERIES, &c.). Under numerous other headings in this
work the evolution of existing forms of government is discussed; see
also the bibliographical note to the article CONSTITUTION AND
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Aristotle elsewhere speaks of the error of those who think that
any one of the depraved forms is better than any other.

[2] None of the free states of Greece ever made extensive or
permanent conquests; but the tribute sometimes paid by one state to
another (as by the Aeginetans to the Athenians) was a manifest source
of corruption. Compare the remarks of Hume (_Essays_, part i. 3,
_That Politics may be reduced to a Science_), "free governments are
the most ruinous and oppressive for their provinces."

[3] Ultimately, in the theory of English law, the king may be said to
have become the universal successor of the people. Some of the
peculiarities of the prerogative rights seem to be explainable only
on this view, e.g. the curious distinction between wrecks come to
land and wrecks still on water. The common right to wreckage was no
doubt the origin of the prerogative right to the former. Every
ancient common right has come to be a right of the crown or a right
held of the crown by a vassal.

[4] See Bagehot's _English Constitution_; or, for a more recent
analysis, Sidney Low's _Governance of England_.

[5] For an account of the double chamber system in the state
legislatures see UNITED STATES: _Constitution and Government_, and
also S. G. Fisher, _The Evolution of the Constitution_ (Philadelphia,
1897).

[6] A government "defeat" may, of course, not really represent a
hostile vote in exceptional cases, and in some instances a government
has obtained a reversal of the vote and has _not_ resigned.

GOVERNOR (from the Fr. _gouverneur_, from _gouverner_, O. Fr. _governer_, Lat. _gubernare_, to steer a ship, to direct, guide), in general, one who governs or exercises authority; specifically, an official appointed to govern a district, province, town, &c. In British colonies or dependencies the representative of the crown is termed a governor. Colonial governors are classed as governors-general, governors and lieutenant-governors, according to the status of the colony or group of colonies over which they preside. Their powers vary according to the position which they occupy. In all cases they represent the authority of the crown. In the United States (q.v.) the official at the head of every state government is called a governor.

GOW, NIEL (1727-1807), Scottish musician of humble parentage, famous as a violinist and player of reels, but more so for the part he played in preserving the old melodies of Scotland. His compositions, and those of his four sons, Nathaniel, the most famous (1763-1831), William (1751-1791), Andrew (1760-1803), and John (1764-1826), formed the "Gow Collection," comprising various volumes edited by Niel and his sons, a valuable repository of Scottish traditional airs. The most important of Niel's sons was Nathaniel, who is remembered as the author of the well-known "Caller Herrin," taken from the fishwives' cry, a tune to which words were afterwards written by Lady Nairne. Nathaniel's son, NIEL GOW junior (1795-1823), was the author of the famous songs "Flora Macdonald's Lament" and "Cam' ye by Athol."

GOWER, JOHN (d. 1408), English poet, died at an advanced age in 1408, so that he may be presumed to have been born about 1330. He belonged to a good Kentish family, but the suggestion of Sir Harris Nicolas that the poet is to be identified with a John Gower who was at one time possessed of the manor of Kentwell is open to serious objections. There is no evidence that he ever lived as a country gentleman, but he was undoubtedly possessed of some wealth, and we know that he was the owner of the manors of Feltwell in Suffolk and Moulton in Norfolk. In a document of 1382 he is called an "Esquier de Kent," and he was certainly not in holy orders. That he was acquainted with Chaucer we know, first because Chaucer in leaving England for Italy in 1378 appointed Gower and another to represent him in his absence, secondly because Chaucer addressed his _Troilus and Criseide_ to Gower and Strode (whom he addresses as "moral Gower" and "philosophical Strode") for criticism and correction, and thirdly because of the lines in the first edition of Gower's _Confessio amantis_, "And gret wel Chaucer whan ye mete," &c. There is no sufficient ground for the suggestion, based partly on the subsequent omission of these lines and partly on the humorous reference of Chaucer to Gower's _Confessio amantis_ in the introduction to the _Man of Law's Tale_, that the friendship was broken by a quarrel. From his Latin poem _Vox clamantis_ we know that he was deeply and painfully interested in the peasants' rising of 1381; and by the alterations which the author made in successive revisions of this work we can trace a gradually increasing sense of disappointment in the youthful king, whom he at first acquits of all responsibility for the state of the kingdom on account of his tender age. That he became personally known to the king we learn from his own statement in the first edition of the _Confessio amantis_, where he says that he met the king upon the river, was invited to enter the royal barge, and in the conversation which followed received the suggestion which led him to write his principal English poem. At the same time we know, especially from the later revisions of the _Confessio amantis_, that he was a great admirer of the king's brilliant cousin, Henry of Lancaster, afterwards Henry IV., whom he came eventually to regard as a possible saviour of society from the misgovernment of Richard II. We have a record that in 1393 he received a collar from his favourite political hero, and it is to be observed that the effigy upon Gower's tomb is wearing a collar of SS. with the swan badge which was used by Henry.

The first edition of the _Confessio amantis_ is dated 1390, and this contains, at least in some copies, a secondary dedication to the then earl of Derby. The later form, in which Henry became the sole object of the dedication, is of the year 1393. Gower's political opinions are still more strongly expressed in the _Cronica tripartita_.

In 1398 he was married to Agnes Groundolf, and from the special licence granted by the bishop of Winchester for the celebration of this marriage in John Gower's private oratory we gather that he was then living in lodgings assigned to him within the priory of St Mary Overy, and perhaps also that he was too infirm to be married in the parish church. It is probable that this was not his first marriage, for there are indications in his early French poem that he had a wife at the time when that was written. His will is dated the 15th of August 1408, and his death took place very soon after this. He had been blind for some years before his death. A magnificent tomb with a recumbent effigy was erected over his grave in the chapel of St John the Baptist within the church of the priory, now St Saviour's, Southwark, and this is still to be seen, though not quite in its original state or place. From the inscription on the tomb, as well as from other indications, it appears that he was a considerable benefactor of the priory and contributed largely to the rebuilding of the church.

The effigy on Gower's tomb rests its head upon a pile of three folio volumes entitled _Speculum meditantis_, _Vox clamantis_ and _Confessio amantis_. These are his three principal works. The first of these was long supposed to have perished, but a copy of it was discovered in the year 1895 under the title _Mirour de l'omme_. It is a French poem of about 30,000 lines in twelve-line stanzas, and under the form of an allegory of the human soul describes the seven deadly sins and their opposing virtues, and then the various estates of man and the vices incident to each, concluding with a narrative of the life of the Virgin Mary, and with praise of her as the means of reconciliation between God and man. The work is extremely tedious for the most part, but shows considerable command over the language and a great facility in metrical expression.

Gower's next work was the _Vox clamantis_ in Latin elegiac verse, in which the author takes occasion from the peasants' insurrection of 1381 to deal again with the faults of the various classes of society. In the earlier portion the insurrection itself is described in a rather vivid manner, though under the form of an allegory: the remainder contains much the same material as we have already seen in that part of the French poem where the classes of society are described. Gower's Latin verse is very fair, as judged by the medieval standard, but in this book he has borrowed very freely from Ovid, Alexander Neckam, Peter de Riga and others.

Gower's chief claim, however, to reputation as a poet rests upon his English work, the _Confessio amantis_, in which he displays in his native language a real gift as a story-teller. He is himself the lover of his poem, in spite of his advancing years, and he makes his confession to Genius, the priest of Venus, under the usual headings supplied by the seven deadly sins. These with their several branches are successively described, and the nature of them illustrated by tales, which are directed to the illustration both of the general nature of the sin, and of the particular form which it may take in a lover. Finally he receives at once his absolution, and his dismissal from the service of Venus, for which his age renders him unfit. The idea is ingenious, and there is often much quaintness of fancy in the application of moral ideas to the relations of the lover and his mistress. The tales are drawn from very various sources and are often extremely well told. The metre is the short couplet, and it is extremely smooth and regular. The great fault of the _Confessio amantis_ is the extent of its digressions, especially in the fifth and seventh books.

Gower also wrote in 1397 a short series of French ballades on the virtue of the married state (_Traitie pour essampler les amantz maries_), and after the accession of Henry IV. he produced the _Cronica tripartita_, a partisan account in Latin leonine hexameters of the events of the last twelve years of the reign of Richard II. About the same time he addressed an English poem in seven-line stanzas to Henry IV. (_In Praise of Peace_), and dedicated to the king a series of French ballades (_Cinkante Balades_), which deal with the conventional topics of love, but are often graceful and even poetical in expression. Several occasional Latin pieces also belong to the later years of his life.

On the whole Gower must be admitted to have had considerable literary powers; and though not a man of genius, and by no means to be compared with Chaucer, yet he did good service in helping to establish the standard literary language, which at the end of the 14th century took the place of the Middle English dialects. The _Confessio amantis_ was long regarded as a classic of the language, and Gower and Chaucer were often mentioned side by side as the fathers of English poetry.

A complete edition of Gower's works in four volumes, edited by G. C.
Macaulay, was published in 1899-1902, the first volume containing the
French works, the second and third the English, and the fourth the
Latin, with a biography. Before this the _Confessio amantis_ had been
published in the following editions: Caxton (1483); Berthelette (1532
and 1554); Chalmers, _British Poets_ (1810); Reinhold Pauli (1857); H.
Morley (1889, incomplete). The two series of French ballades and the
_Praise of Peace_ were printed for the Roxburghe Club in 1818, and the
_Vox clamantis_ and _Cronica tripartita_ were edited by H. O. Coxe for
the Roxburghe Club in 1850. The _Cronica tripartita_, the _Praise of
Peace_ and some of the minor Latin poems were printed in Wright's
_Political Poems_ (Rolls series, 14). The _Praise of Peace_ appeared
in the early folio editions of Chaucer, and has been edited also by Dr
Skeat in his _Chaucerian and other Pieces_. Reference may be made to
Todd's _Illustrations of the Lives and Writings of Gower and Chaucer_;
the article (by Sir H. Nicolas) in the _Retrospective Review_ for
1828; _Observations on the Language of Chaucer and Gower_, by F. J.
Child; H. Morley's English Writers, iv.; Ten Brink's _History of Early
English Literature_, ii.; and Courthope's _History of English Poetry_,
i. (G. C. M.)

GOWER, a seigniory and district in the county of Glamorgan, lying between the rivers Tawe and Loughor and between Breconshire and the sea, its length from the Breconshire border to Worm's Head being 28 m., and its breadth about 8 m. It corresponds to the ancient commote of Gower (in Welsh _Gwyr_) which in early Welsh times was grouped with two other commotes stretching westwards to the Towy and so formed part of the principality of Ystrad Tywi. Its early association with the country to the west instead of with Glamorgan is perpetuated by its continued inclusion in the diocese of St Davids, its two rural deaneries, West and East Gower, being in the archdeaconry of Carmarthen. What is meant by Gower in modern popular usage, however, is only the peninsular part or "English Gower" (that is the Welsh _Bro-wyr_, as distinct from _Gwyr_ proper), roughly corresponding to the hundred of Swansea and lying mainly to the south of a line drawn from Swansea to Loughor.

The numerous limestone caves of the coast are noted for their immense deposits of animal remains, but their traces of man are far scantier, those found in Bacon Hole and in Paviland cave being the most important. In the Roman period the river Tawe, or the great morass between it and the Neath, probably formed the boundary between the Silures and the Goidelic population to the west. The latter, reinforced perhaps from Ireland, continued to be the dominant race in Gower till their conquest or partial expulsion in the 4th century by the sons of Cunedda who introduced a Brythonic element into the district. Centuries later Scandinavian rovers raided the coasts, leaving traces of their more or less temporary occupation in such place-names as Burry Holms, Worms Head and Swansea, and probably also in some cliff earthworks. About the year 1100 the conquest of Gower was undertaken by Henry de Newburgh, first earl of Warwick, with the assistance of Maurice de Londres and others. His followers, who were mostly Englishmen from the marches and Somersetshire with perhaps a sprinkling of Flemings, settled for the most part on the southern side of the peninsula, leaving the Welsh inhabitants of the northern half of Gower practically undisturbed. These invaders were probably reinforced a little later by a small detachment of the larger colony of Flemings which settled in south Pembrokeshire. Moated mounds, which in some cases developed into castles, were built for the protection of the various manors into which the district was parcelled out, the castles of Swansea and Loughor being ascribed to the earl of Warwick and that of Oystermouth to Maurice de Londres. These were repeatedly attacked and burnt by the Welsh during the 12th and 13th centuries, notably by Griffith ap Rhys in 1113, by his son the Lord Rhys in 1189, by his grandsons acting in concert with Llewelyn the Great in 1215, and by the last Prince Llewelyn in 1257. With the Norman conquest the feudal system was introduced, and the manors were held _in capite_ of the lord by the tenure of castle-guard of the castle of Swansea, the _caput baroniae_.

About 1189 the lordship passed from the Warwick family to the crown and was granted in 1203 by King John to William de Braose, in whose family it remained for over 120 years except for three short intervals when it was held for a second time by King John (1211-1215), by Llewelyn the Great (1216-1223), and the Despensers (c. 1323-1326). In 1208 the Welsh and English inhabitants who had frequent cause to complain of their treatment, received each a charter, in similar terms, from King John, who also visited the town of Swansea in 1210 and in 1215 granted its merchants liberal privileges. In 1283 a number of de Braose's tenants--unquestionably Welshmen--left Gower for the royal lordship of Carmarthen, declaring that they would live under the king rather than under a lord marcher. In the following year the king visited de Braose at Oystermouth Castle, which seems to have been made the lord's chief residence, after the destruction of Swansea Castle by Llewelyn. Later on the king's officers of the newly organized county of Carmarthen repeatedly claimed jurisdiction over Gower, thereby endeavouring to reduce its status from that of a lordship marcher with semi-regal jurisdiction, into that of an ordinary constituent of the new county. De Braose resisted the claim and organized the English part of his lordship on the lines of a county palatine, with its own _comitatus_ and chancery held in Swansea Castle, the sheriff and chancellor being appointed by himself. The inhabitants, who had no right of appeal to the crown against their lord or the decisions of his court, petitioned the king, who in 1305 appointed a special commission to enquire into their alleged grievances, but in the following year the de Braose of the time, probably in alarm, conceded liberal privileges both to the burgesses of Swansea and to the English and Welsh inhabitants of his "county" of English Gower. He was the last lord seignior to live within the seigniory, which passed from him to his son-in-law John de Mowbray. Other troubles befell the de Braose barons and their successors in title, for their right to the lordship was contested by the Beauchamps, representatives of the earlier earls of Warwick, in prolonged litigation carried on intermittently from 1278 to 1396, the Beauchamps being actually in possession from 1354, when a decision was given in their favour, till its reversal in 1396. It then reverted to the Mowbrays and was held by them until the 4th duke of Norfolk exchanged it in 1489, for lands in England, with William Herbert, earl of Pembroke. The latter's granddaughter brought it to her husband Charles Somerset, who in 1506 was granted her father's subtitle of Baron Herbert of Chepstow, Raglan and Gower, and from him the lordship has descended to the present lord, the duke of Beaufort.

Gower was made subject to the ordinary law of England by its inclusion in 1535 in the county of Glamorgan as then reorganized; its chancery, which from about the beginning of the 14th century had been located at Oystermouth Castle, came to an end, but though the Welsh acts of 1535 and 1542 purported to abolish the rights and privileges of the lords marchers as conquerors, yet some of these, possibly from being regarded as private rights, have survived into modern times. For instance, the seignior maintained a franchise gaol in Swansea Castle till 1858, when it was abolished by act of parliament, the appointment of coroner for Gower is still vested in him, all writs are executed by the lord's officers instead of by the officers of the sheriff for the county, and the lord's rights to the foreshore, treasure trove, felon's goods and wrecks are undiminished.

The characteristically English part of Gower lies to the south and south-west of its central ridge of Cefn y Bryn. It was this part that was declared by Professor Freeman to be "more Teutonic than Kent itself." The seaside fringe lying between this area and the town of Swansea, as well as the extreme north-west of the peninsula, also became anglicized at a comparatively early date, though the place-names and the names of the inhabitants are still mainly Welsh. The present line of demarcation between the two languages is one drawn from Swansea in a W.N.W. direction to Llanrhidian on the north coast. It has remained practically the same for several centuries, and is likely to continue so, as it very nearly coincides with the southern outcrop of the coal measures, the industrial population to the north being Welsh-speaking, the agriculturists to the south being English. In 1901 the Gower rural district (which includes the Welsh-speaking industrial parish of Llanrhidian, with about three-sevenths of the total population) had 64.5% of the population above three years of age that spoke English only, 5.2% that spoke Welsh only, the remainder being bilinguals, as compared with 17% speaking English only, 17.7% speaking Welsh only and the rest bilinguals in the Swansea rural district, and 7% speaking English only, 55.2% speaking Welsh only and the rest bilinguals in the Pontardawe rural district, the last two districts constituting Welsh Gower.

More than one-fourth of the whole area of Gower is unenclosed common land, of which in English Gower fully one-half is apparently capable of cultivation. Besides the demesne manors of the lord seignior, six in number, there are some twelve mesne manors and fees belonging to the Penrice estate, and nearly twenty more belonging to various other owners. The tenure is customary freehold, though in some cases described as copyhold, and in the ecclesiastical manor of Bishopston, descent is by borough English. The holdings are on the whole probably smaller in size than in any other area of corresponding extent in Wales, and agriculture is still in a backward state.

In the Arthurian romances Gower appears in the form of Goire as the island home of the dead, a view which probably sprang up among the Celts of Cornwall, to whom the peninsula would appear as an island. It is also surmised by Sir John Rhys that Malory's Brandegore (i.e. Bran of Gower) represents the Celtic god of the other world (Rhys, _Arthurian Legend_, 160, 329 et seq.). On Cefn Bryn, almost in the centre of the peninsula, is a cromlech with a large capstone known as Arthur's Stone. The unusually large number of cairns on this hill, given as eighty by Sir Gardner Wilkinson, suggests that this part of Gower was a favourite burial-place in early British times.

See Rev. J. D. Davies, _A History of West Gower_ (4 vols., 1877-1894);
Col. W. Ll-Morgan, _An Antiquarian Survey of East Gower_ (1899); an
article (probably by Professor Freeman) entitled "Anglia
Trans-Walliana" in the _Saturday Review_ for May 20, 1876; "The
Signory of Gower" by G. T. Clark in _Archaeologia Cambrensis_ for
1893-1894; _The Surveys of Gower and Kilvey_, ed. by Baker and
Grant-Francis (1861-1870). (D. Ll. T.)

GOWN, properly the term for a loose outer garment formerly worn by either sex but now generally for that worn by women. While "dress" is the usual English word, except in such combinations as "tea-gown," "dressing-gown" and the like, where the original loose flowing nature of the "gown" is referred to, "gown" is the common American word. "Gown" comes from the O. Fr. _goune_ or _gonne_. The word appears in various Romanic languages, cf. Ital. _gonna_. The medieval Lat. _gunna_ is used of a garment of skin or fur. A Celtic origin has been usually adopted, but the Irish, Gaelic and Manx words are taken from the English. Outside the ordinary use of the word, "gown" is the name for the distinctive robes worn by holders of particular offices or by members of particular professions or of universities, &c. (see ROBES).

GOWRIE, JOHN RUTHVEN, 3RD EARL OF (c. 1577-1600), Scottish conspirator, was the second son of William, 4th Lord Ruthven and 1st earl of Gowrie (cr. 1581), by his wife Dorothea, daughter of Henry Stewart, 2nd Lord Methven. The Ruthven family was of ancient Scottish descent, and had owned extensive estates in the time of William the Lion; the Ruthven peerage dated from the year 1488. The 1st earl of Gowrie (? 1541-1584), and his father, Patrick, 3rd Lord Ruthven (c. 1520-1566), had both been concerned in the murder of Rizzio in 1566; and both took an active part on the side of the Kirk in the constant intrigues and factions among the Scottish nobility of the period. The former had been the custodian of Mary, queen of Scots, during her imprisonment in Loch Leven, where, according to the queen, he had pestered her with amorous attentions; he had also been the chief actor in the plot known as the "raid of Ruthven" when King James VI. was treacherously seized while a guest at the castle of Ruthven in 1582, and kept under restraint for several months while the earl remained at the head of the government. Though pardoned for this conspiracy he continued to plot against the king in conjunction with the earls of Mar and Angus; and he was executed for high treason on the 2nd of May 1584; his friends complaining that the confession on which he was convicted of treason was obtained by a promise of pardon from the king. His eldest son, William, 2nd earl of Gowrie, only survived till 1588, the family dignities and estates, which had been forfeited, having been restored to him in 1586.

When, therefore, John Ruthven succeeded to the earldom while still a child, he inherited along with his vast estates family traditions of treason and intrigue. There was also a popular belief, though without foundation, that there was Tudor blood in his veins; and Burnet afterwards asserted that Gowrie stood next in succession to the crown of England after King James VI. Like his father and grandfather before him, the young earl attached himself to the party of the reforming preachers, who procured his election in 1592 as provost of Perth, a post that was almost hereditary in the Ruthven family. He received an excellent education at the grammar school of Perth and the university of Edinburgh, where he was in the summer of 1593, about the time when his mother, and his sister the countess of Atholl, aided Bothwell in forcing himself sword in hand into the king's bedchamber in Holyrood Palace. A few months later Gowrie joined with Atholl and Montrose in offering to serve Queen Elizabeth, then almost openly hostile to the Scottish king; and it is probable that he had also relations with the rebellious Bothwell. Gowrie had thus been already deeply engaged in treasonable conspiracy when, in August 1594, he proceeded to Italy with his tutor, William Rhynd, to study at the university of Padua. On his way home in 1599 he remained for some months at Geneva with the reformer Theodore Beza; and at Paris he made acquaintance with the English ambassador, who reported him to Cecil as devoted to Elizabeth's service, and a nobleman "of whom there may be exceeding use made." In Paris he may also at this time have had further communication with the exiled Bothwell; in London he was received with marked favour by Queen Elizabeth and her ministers.

The Gowrie conspiracy.

These circumstances owe their importance to the light they throw on the obscurity of the celebrated "Gowrie conspiracy," which resulted in the slaughter of the earl and his brother by attendants of King James at Gowrie House, Perth, a few weeks after Gowrie's return to Scotland in May 1600. This event ranks among the unsolved enigmas of history. The mystery is caused by the improbabilities inherent in any of the alternative hypotheses suggested to account for the unquestionable facts of the occurrence; the discrepancies in the evidence produced at the time; the apparent lack of forethought or plan on the part of the chief actors, whichever hypothesis be adopted, as well as the thoughtless folly of their actual procedure; and the insufficiency of motive, whoever the guilty parties may have been. The solutions of the mystery that have been suggested are three in number: first, that Gowrie and his brother had concocted a plot to murder, or more probably to kidnap King James, and that they lured him to Gowrie House for this purpose; secondly, that James paid a surprise visit to Gowrie House with the intention, which he carried out, of slaughtering the two Ruthvens; and thirdly, that the tragedy was the outcome of an unpremeditated brawl following high words between the king and the earl, or his brother. To understand the relative probabilities of these hypotheses regard must be had to the condition of Scotland in the year 1600 (see SCOTLAND: _History_). Here it can only be recalled that plots to capture the person of the sovereign for the purpose of coercing his actions were of frequent occurrence, more than one of which had been successful, and in several of which the Ruthven family had themselves taken an active part; that the relations between England and Scotland were at this time more than usually strained, and that the young earl of Gowrie was reckoned in London among the adherents of Elizabeth; that the Kirk party, being at variance with James, looked upon Gowrie as an hereditary partisan of their cause, and had recently sent an agent to Paris to recall him to Scotland as their leader; that Gowrie was believed to be James's rival for the succession to the English crown. Moreover, as regards the question of motive it is to be observed, on the one hand, that the Ruthvens believed Gowrie's father to have been treacherously done to death, and his widow insulted by the king's favourite minister; while, on the other, James was indebted in a large sum of money to the earl of Gowrie's estate, and popular gossip credited either Gowrie or his brother, Alexander Ruthven, with being the lover of the queen. Although the evidence on these points, and on every minute circumstance connected with the tragedy itself, has been exhaustively examined by historians of the Gowrie conspiracy, it cannot be asserted that the mystery has been entirely dispelled; but, while it is improbable that complete certainty will ever be arrived at as to whether the guilt lay with James or with the Ruthven brothers, the most modern research in the light of materials inaccessible or overlooked till the 20th century, points pretty clearly to the conclusion that there was a genuine conspiracy by Gowrie and his brother to kidnap the king. If this be the true solution, it follows that King James was innocent of the blood of the Ruthvens; and it raises the presumption that his own account of the occurrence was, in spite of the glaring improbabilities which it involved, substantially true.

The slaughter of the Ruthvens.

The facts as related by James and other witnesses were, in outline, as follows. On the 5th of August 1600 the king rose early to hunt in the neighbourhood of Falkland Palace, about 14 m. from Perth. Just as he was setting forth in company with the duke of Lennox, the earl of Mar, Sir Thomas Erskine and others, he was accosted by Alexander Ruthven (known as the master of Ruthven), a younger brother of the earl of Gowrie, who had ridden from Perth that morning to inform the king that he had met on the previous day a man in possession of a pitcher full of foreign gold coins, whom he had secretly locked up in a room at Gowrie House. Ruthven urged the king to ride to Perth to examine this man for himself and to take possession of the treasure. After some hesitation James gave credit to the story, suspecting that the possessor of the coins was one of the numerous Catholic agents at that time moving about Scotland in disguise. Without giving a positive reply to Alexander Ruthven, James started to hunt; but later in the morning he called Ruthven to him and said he would ride to Perth when the hunting was over. Ruthven then despatched a servant, Henderson, by whom he had been accompanied from Perth in the early morning, to tell Gowrie that the king was coming to Gowrie House. This messenger gave the information to Gowrie about ten o'clock in the morning. Meanwhile Alexander Ruthven was urging the king to lose no time, requesting him to keep the matter secret from his courtiers, and to bring to Gowrie House as small a retinue as possible. James, with a train of some fifteen persons, arrived at Gowrie House about one o'clock, Alexander Ruthven having spurred forward for a mile or so to announce the king's approach. But notwithstanding Henderson's warning some three hours earlier, Gowrie had made no preparations for the king's entertainment, thus giving the impression of having been taken by surprise. After a meagre repast, for which he was kept waiting an hour, James, forbidding his retainers to follow him, went with Alexander Ruthven up the main staircase and passed through two chambers and two doors, both of which Ruthven locked behind them, into a turret-room at the angle of the house, with windows looking on the courtyard and the street. Here James expected to find the mysterious prisoner with the foreign gold. He found instead an armed man, who, as appeared later, was none other than Gowrie's servant, Henderson. Alexander Ruthven immediately put on his hat, and drawing Henderson's dagger, presented it to the king's breast with threats of instant death if James opened a window or called for help. An allusion by Ruthven to the execution of his father, the 1st earl of Gowrie, drew from James a reproof of Ruthven's ingratitude for various benefits conferred on his family. Ruthven then uncovered his head, declaring that James's life should be safe if he remained quiet; then, committing the king to the custody of Henderson, he left the turret--ostensibly to consult Gowrie--and locked the door behind him. While Ruthven was absent the king questioned Henderson, who professed ignorance of any plot and of the purpose for which he had been placed in the turret; he also at James's request opened one of the windows, and was about to open the other when Ruthven returned. Whether or not Alexander had seen his brother is uncertain. But Gowrie had meantime spread the report below that the king had taken horse and had ridden away; and the royal retinue were seeking their horses to follow him. Alexander, on re-entering the turret, attempted to bind James's hands; a struggle ensued, in the course of which the king was seen at the window by some of his followers below in the street, who also heard him cry "treason" and call for help to the earl of Mar. Gowrie affected not to hear these cries, but kept asking what was the matter. Lennox, Mar and most of the other lords and gentlemen ran up the main staircase to the king's help, but were stopped by the locked door, which they spent some time in trying to batter down. John Ramsay (afterwards earl of Holdernesse), noticing a small dark stairway leading directly to the inner chamber adjoining the turret, ran up it and found the king struggling at grips with Ruthven. Drawing his dagger, Ramsay wounded Ruthven, who was then pushed down the stairway by the king. Sir Thomas Erskine, summoned by Ramsay, now followed up the small stairs with Dr Hugh Herries, and these two coming upon the wounded Ruthven despatched him with their swords. Gowrie, entering the courtyard with his stabler Thomas Cranstoun and seeing his brother's body, rushed up the staircase after Erskine and Herries, followed by Cranstoun and others of his retainers; and in the melee Gowrie was killed. Some commotion was caused in the town by the noise of these proceedings; but it quickly subsided, though the king did not deem it safe to return to Falkland for some hours.

The Sprot forgeries.

The tragedy caused intense excitement throughout Scotland, and the investigation of the circumstances was followed with much interest in England also, where all the details were reported to Elizabeth's ministers. The preachers of the Kirk, whose influence in Scotland was too extensive for the king to neglect, were only with the greatest difficulty persuaded to accept James's account of the occurrence, although he voluntarily submitted himself to cross-examination by one of their number. Their belief, and that of their partisans, influenced no doubt by political hostility to James, was that the king had invented the story of a conspiracy by Gowrie to cover his own design to extirpate the Ruthven family. James gave some colour to this belief, which has not been entirely abandoned, by the relentless severity with which he pursued the two younger, and unquestionably innocent, brothers of the earl. Great efforts were made by the government to prove the complicity of others in the plot. One noted and dissolute conspirator, Sir Robert Logan of Restalrig, was posthumously convicted of having been privy to the Gowrie conspiracy on the evidence of certain letters produced by a notary, George Sprot, who swore they had been written by Logan to Gowrie and others. These letters, which are still in existence, were in fact forged by Sprot in imitation of Logan's handwriting; but the researches of Andrew Lang have shown cause for suspecting that the most important of them was either copied by Sprot from a genuine original by Logan, or that it embodied the substance of such a letter. If this be correct, it would appear that the conveyance of the king to Fast Castle, Logan's impregnable fortress on the coast of Berwickshire, was part of the plot; and it supplies, at all events, an additional piece of evidence to prove the genuineness of the Gowrie conspiracy.

Gowrie's two younger brothers, William and Patrick Ruthven, fled to England; and after the accession of James to the English throne William escaped abroad, but Patrick was taken and imprisoned for nineteen years in the Tower of London. Released in 1622, Patrick Ruthven resided first at Cambridge and afterwards in Somersetshire, being granted a small pension by the crown. He married Elizabeth Woodford, widow of the 1st Lord Gerrard, by whom he had two sons and a daughter, Mary; the latter entered the service of Queen Henrietta Maria, and married the famous painter van Dyck, who painted several portraits of her. Patrick died in poverty in a cell in the King's Bench in 1652, being buried as "Lord Ruthven." His son, Patrick, presented a petition to Oliver Cromwell in 1656, in which, after reciting that the parliament of Scotland in 1641 had restored his father to the barony of Ruthven, he prayed that his "extreme poverty" might be relieved by the bounty of the Protector.

See Andrew Lang, _James VI. and the Gowrie Mystery_ (London, 1902),
and the authorities there cited; Robert Pitcairn, _Criminal Trials in
Scotland_ (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1833); David Moysie, _Memoirs of the
Affairs of Scotland, 1577-1603_ (Edinburgh, 1830); Louis A. Barbe,
_The Tragedy of Gowrie House_ (London, 1887); Andrew Bisset, _Essays
on Historical Truth_ (London, 1871); David Calderwood, _History of the
Kirk of Scotland_ (8 vols., Edinburgh, 1842-1849); P. F. Tytler,
_History of Scotland_ (9 vols., Edinburgh, 1828-1843); John Hill
Burton, _History of Scotland_ (7 vols., Edinburgh, 1867-1870). W. A.
Craigie has edited as _Skotlands Rimur_ some Icelandic ballads
relating to the Gowrie conspiracy. He has also printed the Danish
translation of the official account of the conspiracy, which was
published at Copenhagen in 1601. (R. J. M.)

GOWRIE, a belt of fertile alluvial land (_Scotice_, "carse") of Perthshire, Scotland. Occupying the northern shore of the Firth of Tay, it has a generally north-easterly trend and extends from the eastern boundaries of Perth city to the confines of Dundee. It measures 15 m. in length, its breadth from the river towards the base of the Sidlaw Hills varying from 2 to 4 m. Probably it is a raised beach, submerged until a comparatively recent period. Although it contained much bog land and stagnant water as late as the 18th century, it has since been drained and cultivated, and is now one of the most productive tracts in Perthshire. The district is noteworthy for the number of its castles and mansions, almost wholly residential, among which may be mentioned Kinfauns Castle, Inchyra House, Pitfour Castle, Errol Park, Megginch Castle, dating from 1575; Fingask Castle, Kinnaird Castle, erected in the 15th century and occupied by James VI. in 1617; Rossie Priory, the seat of Lord Kinnaird; and Huntly Castle, built by the 3rd earl of Kinghorne.

GOYA, a river town and port of Corrientes, Argentine Republic, the commercial centre of the south-western departments of the province and chief town of a department of the same name, on a _riacho_ or side channel of the Parana about 5 m. from the main channel and about 120 m. S. of the city of Corrientes. Pop. (1905, est.) 7000. The town is built on low ground which is subject to inundations in very wet weather, but its streets are broad and the general appearance of its edifices is good. Among its public buildings is a handsome parish church and a national normal school. The productions of the neighbourhood are chiefly pastoral, and its exports include cattle, hides, wool and oranges. Goya had an export of crudely-made cheese long before the modern cheese factories of the Argentine Republic came into existence. The place dates from 1807, and had its origin, it is said, in the trade established there by a ship captain and his wife Gregoria or Goya, who supplied passing vessels with beef.

GOYANNA, or GOIANA, a city of Brazil in the N.E. angle of the state of Pernambuco, about 65 m. N. of the city of Pernambuco. Pop.(1890) 15,436. It is built on a fertile plain between the rivers Tracunhaem and Capibaribe-mirim near their junction to form the Goyanna river, and is 15 m. from the coast. It is surrounded by, and is the commercial centre for, one of the richest agricultural districts of the state, which produces sugar, rum, coffee, tobacco, cotton, cattle, hides and castor oil. The Goyanna river is navigable for small vessels nearly up to the city, but its entrance is partly obstructed and difficult. Goyanna is one of the oldest towns of the state, and was occupied by the Dutch from 1636 to 1654. It has several old-style churches, an orphans' asylum, hospital and some small industries.