{
    "system": "GoGuides Verified Text",
    "api_version": "verified-text-v1",
    "status": "ok",
    "response_type": "verified_text_record",
    "source_key": "britannica_1911",
    "source_title": "Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911)",
    "license_code": "public_domain",
    "attribution": null,
    "license_url": null,
    "chunk_id": "1911:knowles:8d86592dcea2",
    "title": "KNOWLES",
    "section": null,
    "hash_alg": "sha256",
    "hash_sha256": "a90e899376f18c9289f935bdcf40d96f5c9c04d00ee09eea6440e325e999fd69",
    "normalizer": {
        "name": "ggnorm",
        "version": "1.0"
    },
    "verified_text": "knowles, james sheridan (1784-1862), irish dramatist and actor, was born in cork, on the 12th of may 1784. his father was the lexicographer, james knowles (1759-1840), cousin-german of richard brinsley sheridan. the family removed to london in 1793, and at the age of fourteen knowles published a ballad entitled _the welsh harper_, which, set to music, was very popular. the boy's talents secured him the friendship of hazlitt, who introduced him to lamb and coleridge. he served for some time in the wiltshire and afterwards in the tower hamlets militia, leaving the service to become pupil of dr robert willan (1757-1812). he obtained the degree of m.d., and was appointed vaccinator to the jennerian society. although, however, dr willan generously offered him a share in his practice, he resolved to forsake medicine for the stage, making his first appearance probably at bath, and playing hamlet at the crow theatre, dublin. at wexford he married, in october 1809, maria charteris, an actress from the edinburgh theatre. in 1810 he wrote _leo_, in which edmund kean acted with great success; another play, _brian boroihme_, written for the belfast theatre in the next year, also drew crowded houses, but his earnings were so small that he was obliged to become assistant to his father at the belfast academical institution. in 1817 he removed from belfast to glasgow, where, besides conducting a flourishing school, he continued to write for the stage. his first important success was _caius gracchus_, produced at belfast in 1815; and his _virginius_, written for edmund kean, was first performed in 1820 at covent garden. in _william tell_ (1825) macready found one of his favourite parts. his best-known play, _the hunchback_, was produced at covent garden in 1832; _the wife_ was brought out at the same theatre in 1833; and _the love chase_ in 1837. in his later years he forsook the stage for the pulpit, and as a baptist preacher attracted large audiences at exeter hall and elsewhere. he published two polemical works--the _rock of rome_ and the _idol demolished by its own priests_--in both of which he combated the special doctrines of the roman catholic church. knowles was for some years in the receipt of an annual pension of £200, bestowed by sir robert peel. he died at torquay on the 30th of november 1862. a full list of the works of knowles and of the various notices of him will be found in the _life_ (1872), privately printed by his son, richard brinsley knowles (1820-1882), who was well known as a journalist. know nothing (or american) party, in united states history, a political party of great importance in the decade before 1860. its principle was political proscription of naturalized citizens and of roman catholics. distrust of alien immigrants, because of presumptive attachment to european institutions, has always been more or less widely diffused, and race antagonisms have been recurrently of political moment; while anti-catholic sentiment went back to colonial sectarianism. these were the elements of the political \"nativism\"--i.e. hostility to foreign influence in politics--of 1830-1860. in these years irish immigration became increasingly preponderant; and that of catholics was even more so. the geographical segregation and the clannishness of foreign voters in the cities gave them a power that whigs and democrats alike (the latter more successfully) strove to control, to the great aggravation of naturalization and election frauds. \"no one can deny that ignorant foreign suffrage had grown to be an evil of immense proportions\" (j. f. rhodes). in labour disputes, political feuds and social clannishness, the alien elements--especially the irish and german--displayed their power, and at times gave offence by their hostile criticism of american institutions.[1] in immigration centres like boston, philadelphia and new york, the catholic church, very largely foreign in membership and proclaiming a foreign allegiance of disputed extent, was really \"the symbol and strength of foreign influence\" (scisco); many regarded it as a transplanted foreign institution, un-american in organization and ideas.[2] thus it became involved in politics. the decade 1830-1840 was marked by anti-catholic (anti-irish) riots in various cities and by party organization of nativists in many places in local elections. thus arose the american-republican (later the native-american) party, whose national career begun practically in 1845, and which in louisiana in 1841 first received a state organization. new york city in 1844 and boston in 1845 were carried by the nativists, but their success was due to whig support, which was not continued,[3] and the national organization was by 1847--in which year it endorsed the whig nominee for the presidency--practically dead. though some whig leaders had strong nativist leanings, and though the party secured a few representatives in congress, it accomplished little at this time in national politics. in the early 'fifties nativism was revivified by an unparalleled inflow of aliens. catholics, moreover, had combated the native-americans defiantly. in 1852 both whigs and democrats were forced to defend their presidential nominees against charges of anti-catholic sentiment. in 1853-1854 there was a wide-spread \"anti-popery\" propaganda and riots against catholics in various cities. meanwhile the know nothing party had sprung from nativist secret societies, whose relations remain obscure.[4] its organization was secret; and hence its name--for a member, when interrogated, always answered that he knew nothing about it. selecting candidates secretly from among those nominated by the other parties, and giving them no public endorsement, the know nothings, as soon as they gained the balance of power, could shatter at will whig and democratic calculations. their power was evident by 1852--from which time, accordingly, \"know nothingism\" is most properly dated. the charges they brought against naturalization abuses were only too well founded; and those against election frauds not less so--though, unfortunately, the know nothings themselves followed scandalous election methods in some cities. the proposed proscription of the foreign-born knew no exceptions: many wished never to concede to them all the rights of natives, nor to their children unless educated in the public schools. as for catholics, the real animus of know nothingism was against _political_ romanism; therefore, secondarily, against papal allegiance and episcopal church administration (in place of administration by lay trustees, as was earlier common practice in the united states); and, primarily, against public aid to catholic schools, and the alleged greed (i.e. the power and success) of the irish in politics. the times were propitious for the success of an aggressive third party; for the whigs were broken by the death of clay and webster and the crushing defeat of 1852, and both the whig and democratic parties were disintegrating on the slavery issue. but the know nothings lacked aggression. in entering national politics the party abandoned its mysteries, without making compensatory gains; when it was compelled to publish a platform of principles, factions arose in its ranks; moreover, to draw recruits the faster from whigs and democrats, it \"straddled\" the slavery question, and this, although a temporary success, ultimately meant ruin. in 1854, however, know nothing gains were remarkable.[5] thereafter the organization spread like wildfire in the south, in which section there were almost no aliens, and the whig dissolution was far advanced. the virginia election of may 1855 proved conclusively, however, that know nothingism was no stronger against the democrats than was the whig party it had absorbed; it was the same organization under a new name. in the north it was even clearer that slavery must be faced. know nothing evasion probably helped the south,[6] but neither republicans nor democrats would endure the evasion; douglas and seward, and later (1855-1856) their parties, denounced it. in the north-west the know nothings were swept into the anti-slavery movement in 1854 without retaining their organization. in the state campaigns of 1855 professions were measured to the latitude. the national platform of 1856 (adopted by a secret grand council), besides including anti-alien and anti-catholic planks, offered sops to the north, the south and the \"doughfaces\" on the slavery issue. millard fillmore was nominated for the presidency. the anti-slavery delegates of eight northern states bolted the convention, and eight months later the republican wave swept the know nothings out of the north.[7] the national field being thus lost, the state councils became supreme, and local opportunism fostered variation and weakness. by 1859 the party was confined almost entirely to the border states. the constitutional union--the \"do nothing\"--party of 1860 was mainly composed of know nothing remnants.[8] the year 1860 practically marked, also, the disappearance of the party as a local power.[9] except in city politics nativism had no vitality; in state and national politics it really had no excuse. race antipathies gave it local cohesive power in the north; various causes, already mentioned, advanced it in the south; and as a device to win offices it was of wide-spread attraction. its only real contribution to government was the proof that nativism is not americanism. public opinion has never accepted its estimate of the alien nor of catholic citizens. some of its anti-church principles, however--as the non-support of denominational schools--have been generally accepted; others--as the refusal to exclude the (protestant) bible from public schools--have been generally rejected; others--as the taxation of all church property--remain disputed. see l. d. scisco, _political nativism in new york state_ (doctoral thesis, columbia university, new york, 1901); l. f. schmeckebier, _know nothing party in maryland_ (johns hopkins university, baltimore, 1899); g. h. haynes, \"a know nothing legislature\" (mass., 1855), in _american historical assoc. report_, pt. 1 (1896); j. b. mcmaster, _with the fathers_, including \"the riotous career of the know nothings\" (new york, 1896); h. f. desmond, _the know nothing party_ (washington, 1905). footnotes: [1] e.g. for some extraordinary \"reform\" programmes among german immigrants see schmeckebier (as below), pp. 48-50. [2] \"the actual offence of the catholic church was its non-conformity to american methods of church administration and popular education\" (scisco). [3] the whigs bargained aid in new york city for \"american\" support in the state, and charged that the latter was not given. millard fillmore attributed the whig loss of the state (see liberty party) to the disaffection of catholic whigs angered by the alliance with the nativists. [4] the order of united americans and the order of the star spangled banner, established in new york respectively in 1845 and 1850, were the most important sources of its membership. [5] this year \"american party\" became the official name. its strength in congress was almost thirty-fold that of 1852. it elected governors, legislatures, or both, in four new england states, and in maryland, kentucky and california; minor officers elsewhere; and almost won six southern states. [6] for it delayed anti-slavery organization in the north, and presumably discouraged immigration, which was a source of strength to the north rather than to the south. [7] they carried only maryland. the popular vote in the north was under one-seventh, in the south above three-sevenths, of the total vote cast. [8] note the presidential vote. seward's loss of the republican nomination was partly due to know nothing hostility. [9] its firmest hold was in maryland. its rule in baltimore (1854-1860) was marked by disgraceful riots and abuses.",
    "source_url": "https://archive.org/details/EB1911WMF",
    "observed_at": "2026-02-08 18:43:13",
    "integrity": {
        "hash_check": "match",
        "hash_scope": "full_normalized_text",
        "computed_sha256": "a90e899376f18c9289f935bdcf40d96f5c9c04d00ee09eea6440e325e999fd69"
    },
    "machine_use": {
        "read": true,
        "cite": true,
        "decision": "verified_public_domain_text"
    },
    "goguides_data_license": "https://www.goguides.com/data-license",
    "goguides_data_license_version": "2.0",
    "documentation": {
        "white_paper_url": "https://www.goguides.com/white-paper.php",
        "pdf_url": "https://www.goguides.com/whitepapers/goguides-ai-source-clearance-white-paper.pdf"
    }
}