Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/148

 been asked, he should have replied in the same manner’ (Rolls of Parliament, iii. 358). On the strength of this opinion the proceedings of 1388 were reversed. Thirning's attitude on this occasion did not prevent him from taking the chief part in the quasi-judicial proceedings of the opposition of Richard II. He was one of the persons appointed to obtain Richard's renunciation of the throne on 29 Sept., and was one of the commissioners who on the following day pronounced the sentence of deposition in parliament. It is said to have been by Thirning's advice that Henry of Lancaster abandoned his idea of claiming the throne by right of conquest, the chief justice arguing that such a claim would have made all tenure of property insecure (Annales Henrici Quarti, p. 282). Thirning was the chief of the proctors sent to announce the deposition to Richard. After the reading of the formal commission, Richard refused to renounce the spiritual honour of king. Thirning then reminded him of the terms in which on 29 Sept. he had confessed he was deposed on account of his demerits. Richard demurred, saying, ‘Not so, but because my governance pleased them not.’ Thirning, however, insisted, and Richard yielded with a jest (ib. pp. 286–7; Rot. Parl. iii. 424). On 3 Nov. Thirning pronounced the decision of the king and peers against the accusers of Thomas of Gloucester (Annales Henrici Quarti, p. 315). This was his final interference in politics, but he continued to be chief justice throughout the reign of Henry IV, and on the accession of Henry V received a new patent on 2 May 1413. Thirning must have died very soon after, for his successor, Richard Norton (d. 1420) [q. v.], was appointed on 26 June of the same year, and in Trinity term of that year his widow Joan brought an action of debt.

[Annales Henrici Quarti ap. Trokelowe, Blaneford, &c. (Rolls Ser.); Rolls of Parliament; Ramsay's Lancaster and York, i. 11; Wylie's Hist. of Henry IV, i. 16–17, 33; Stubbs's Const. Hist. iii. 13–14; Foss's Judges of England.]

 THISTLEWOOD, ARTHUR (1770–1820), Cato Street conspirator, born at Tupholme, about twelve miles from Lincoln, in 1770, was the son of William Thistlewood of Bardney, Lincolnshire, and is said to have been illegitimate. His father was a well-known breeder of stock and respectable farmer under the Vyners of Gautby. Thistlewood appears to have been brought up as a land surveyor, but never followed that business; his brother, with whom he has been confused, was apprenticed to a doctor. He is said to have become unsettled in mind through reading the works of Paine, and to have proceeded to America and from America to France shortly before the downfall of Robespierre. In Paris he probably developed the opinions which marked him through life, and, according to Alison (Hist. Eur. ii. 424), returned to England in 1794 ‘firmly persuaded that the first duty of a patriot was to massacre the government and overturn all existing institutions.’ He was appointed ensign in the first regiment of West Riding militia on 1 July 1798 (Militia List, 1799), and on the raising of the supplementary militia he obtained a lieutenant's commission in the 3rd Lincolnshire regiment, commanded by Lord Buckinghamshire.

He married, 24 Jan. 1804, Jane Worsley, a lady older than himself, living in Lincoln and possessed of a considerable fortune. After his marriage he resided first in Bawtry and then in Lincoln. On the early death of his wife her fortune reverted to her own family, by whom he was granted a small annuity. Being obliged to leave Lincoln owing to some gambling transaction which left him unable to meet his creditors, he drifted to London, and there, being thoroughly discontented with his own condition, he became an active member of the Spencean Society, which aimed at revolutionising all social institutions in the interest of the poorer classes [see ]. At the society's meetings he came in contact with the elder James Watson (1766–1838) [q. v.] and his son, the younger James, who were in hearty sympathy with his views. In 1814 he resided for some time in Paris. Soon after his return to England, about the end of 1814, he came under the observation of the government as a dangerous character. Under the auspices of the Spencean and other revolutionary societies, the younger Watson and Thistlewood organised a great public meeting for 2 Dec. 1816 at Spa Fields, at which it was determined to inaugurate a revolution. At the outset the Tower and Bank were to be seized. For several months before the meeting Thistlewood constantly visited the various guardrooms and barracks, and he was so confident that his endeavours to increase the existing dissatisfaction among the soldiery had proved successful, that he fully believed that the Tower guard would throw open the gates to the mob. The military arrangements under the new régime were to be committed to his charge. The government was, however, by means of informers, kept in touch with the crude plans of the conspirators, and was well