Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/113

 if he thought proper; but as the enemy was strongly posted, he deemed it safer to wait till next morning. By morning the Sikhs had disappeared, and it is doubtful whether they had any other object in their attack than that of gaining time for a retreat. Gough expressed his ‘warm approval’ of Thackwell's conduct, but there are some signs of dissatisfaction in his despatch of 5 Dec. An officer of fifty years' service is apt to be over-cautious. This was not the case with Gough himself, but Chilianwala, six weeks afterwards, went far to justify Thackwell. He was in command of the cavalry at Chilianwala, but actually directed only the left brigade. At Gujrat he was also on the left, and kept in check the enemy's cavalry when it tried to turn that flank. After the battle was won he led a vigorous pursuit till nightfall. In his despatch of 26 Feb. 1849 Gough said: ‘I am also greatly indebted to this tried and gallant officer for his valuable assistance and untiring exertions throughout the present and previous operations as second in command with this force.’ He received the thanks of parliament for the third time, and the G.C.B. (5 June 1849). In November 1849 he was given the colonelcy of the 16th lancers. In 1854 he was appointed inspecting-general of cavalry, and on 20 June lieutenant-general. He died on 8 April 1859 at Aghada Hall, co. Cork. He married, on 29 July 1825, Maria Andriah, eldest daughter of Francis Roche of Rochemount, co. Cork; he had four sons and three daughters.

His third son, (1837–1858), was lieutenant in the 15th Bengal native infantry when that regiment mutinied at Nasirabad on 28 May 1857. He had been commissioned as ensign on 25 June 1855, and became lieutenant on 23 Nov. 1856. He was appointed interpreter to the 83rd foot, was in several engagements with the mutineers, and distinguished himself in the defence of Nimach. He was present at the siege of Lucknow, and, while walking in the streets after its capture, he was killed in the street by some of the sepoys on 20 March 1858.

 THANE, JOHN (1748–1818), printseller and engraver, born in 1748, carried on business for many years in Soho, London, and became famous for his expert knowledge of pictures, coins, and every species of vertu. He was a friend of the antiquary Joseph Strutt, who at one period resided in his family. He collected the works of Thomas Snelling [q. v.], the medallic antiquary, and published them with an excellent portrait drawn and engraved by himself. On Dr. John Fothergill's death in 1780 his fine collection of engraved portraits were sold to Thane, who cut up the volumes and disposed of the contents to the principal collectors of British portraits at that time. Thane was the projector and editor of ‘British Autography: a Collection of Facsimiles of the Handwriting of Royal and Illustrious Personages, with their Authentic Portraits,’ London (1793 &c.), 3 vols. 4to. A supplement to this work was published by Edward Daniell, London [1854], 4to, with a fine portrait of Thane prefixed, engraved by John Ogborne, from a portrait by William Redmore Bigg. Thane died in 1818. His portraits were sold in May 1819.

 THANET,. [See, ninth earl, 1767-1825.]

THAUN, PHILIP (fl. 1120), Anglo-Norman writer. [See .]

THAYRE, THOMAS (fl. 1603–1625), medical writer, describes himself as a ‘chirurgian’ in July 1603; but as his name does not occur among the members of the Barber-Surgeons' Company, and as he uses no such description in 1625, he was probably one of the numerous irregular practitioners of the period, and no sworn surgeon. He published in London in 1603 a ‘Treatise of the Pestilence,’ dedicated to Sir Robert Lee, lord mayor 1602–3. The cause of the disease, the regimen, drugs and diet proper for its treatment are discussed. Ten diagnostic symptoms are described, and some theology is intermixed. The general plan differs little from that of Thomas Phaer's ‘Treatise on the Plague,’ and identical sentences occur in several places [see ]. These passages have suggested the untenable view (Catalogue of the Library of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society of London, ii. 439) that the works are identical, and Thayre a misprint for Phayre. A similar resemblance of passages is to be